AR-15 and M-16 Show And Tell

[Kirk Freeman]

Client gave me SIG M400. I put new CTR stock, Radian charging handle, ALG, ACT trigger, and Troy battle sights on it. About 470 on a free gun.

I kept the UTG rail guards. May keep, may replace. They look like poor, but going to see how they work.

 

[dbg326]

After much deliberation, I decided to switch direction and go with 7.62x39 in my PDW build. I have no plans on buying a can, and with ammo being half, if not less than 300BLK, the proprietary parts made more sense.

Trying a BCA 7.5in barrel, and the AIM BCG to start. If/when the bolt fails, I'll likely swap in an LMT. CPD mags on order.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Ggreen]

After much deliberation, I decided to switch direction and go with 7.62x39 in my PDW build. I have no plans on buying a can, and with ammo being half, if not less than 300BLK, the proprietary parts made more sense.

Trying a BCA 7.5in barrel, and the AIM BCG to start. If/when the bolt fails, I'll likely swap in an LMT. CPD mags on order.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Personal defense weapon should not be a caliber highly prone to failure in an ar platform. Before anyone goes crazy and comes in with the "x brand runs great" very few ar's run X39 without failures. The ones that run slightly better than most are well north of 1k. Then you have to figure out which magazines work with which ammo. Magazines are very pricey, you also are limited on what magazine carriers will hold the banana X39.

I've never seen an X39 ar finish a class without multiple fails. For a deer rifle that only ever sees slow fire, it can be ok. Still not as good as 300blk, especially in a personal defense weapon.

X39 and 300blk defense ammo is equal cost wise. 300blk has much better extreme short bbl performance as well.

If it were me, budget building with bear creek, there is no way I'd consider X39 for anything other than a vanity round for an ar.

 

[teddy12b]

The top is a Bushmaster A2 "ish" factory rifle. Just something to remember old days.

The bottom one is a PSA CHF mid length dissipator upper, and it's all PSA except the the RRA Entry buttstock. I've had and always liked dissipator style AR's and wanted to replace the ones I sold in the spirit of fewer moving parts. I hardly ever adjusted a collapsible buttstock beyond where this one is at anyway so it just made sense. I tried something similar years ago with the magpul fixed stock, but it was much longer. Just got it completed this week so the jury is still out on it's reliability and performance, but I've never been disappointed with a PSA CHF upper. Time and empty cases will tell.

 

[dbg326]

Personal defense weapon should not be a caliber highly prone to failure in an ar platform. Before anyone goes crazy and comes in with the "x brand runs great" very few ar's run X39 without failures. The ones that run slightly better than most are well north of 1k. Then you have to figure out which magazines work with which ammo. Magazines are very pricey, you also are limited on what magazine carriers will hold the banana X39.

I've never seen an X39 ar finish a class without multiple fails. For a deer rifle that only ever sees slow fire, it can be ok. Still not as good as 300blk, especially in a personal defense weapon.

X39 and 300blk defense ammo is equal cost wise. 300blk has much better extreme short bbl performance as well.

If it were me, budget building with bear creek, there is no way I'd consider X39 for anything other than a vanity round for an ar.

If you're paying for the ammo, I'll gladly stick with 300BLK! The fact is that 7.62x39 is substantially cheaper, and ballistically is approximately 200fps quicker than 300BLK, given equal barrel lengths and similar weight bullets. Expensive x39 is essentially where cheap 300BLK begins.

Appreciate the input, and all of those points have been considered at length.

Bolts and magazines tend to be the major failure points. CPD magazines are roughly the same price as current gen Pmags and 300BLK specific mags.

The only BCA component on the pistol is the barrel.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Zephri]

The top is a Bushmaster A2 "ish" factory rifle. Just something to remember old days.

The bottom one is a PSA CHF mid length dissipator upper, and it's all PSA except the the RRA Entry buttstock. I've had and always liked dissipator style AR's and wanted to replace the ones I sold in the spirit of fewer moving parts. I hardly ever adjusted a collapsible buttstock beyond where this one is at anyway so it just made sense. I tried something similar years ago with the magpul fixed stock, but it was much longer. Just got it completed this week so the jury is still out on it's reliability and performance, but I've never been disappointed with a PSA CHF upper. Time and empty cases will tell.

Feels kinda ironic to me, my first ar I had was a dissipator then I sold the second one to you. I always liked the look of a dissy in a stubby stock. The irony lays in the fact that I had a stubby stock on it at one point in time.

I'm glad it's at a good home!

and other configurations...

 

[Ggreen]

If you're paying for the ammo, I'll gladly stick with 300BLK! The fact is that 7.62x39 is substantially cheaper, and ballistically is approximately 200fps quicker than 300BLK, given equal barrel lengths and similar weight bullets. Expensive x39 is essentially where cheap 300BLK begins.

Appreciate the input, and all of those points have been considered at length.

Bolts and magazines tend to be the major failure points. CPD magazines are roughly the same price as current gen Pmags and 300BLK specific mags.

The only BCA component on the pistol is the barrel.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Was just trying to save you a headache. The major issue with x39 in an ar magwell is that x39 is a constant taper, that's why AK magazines are a constant angle right to the feed lip. 4 or 5 rounds have to try to lay even and feed flat in an ar magwell which leads to all types of misfeeds. 223 / 300blk are relatively flat so they stack neatly in an ar magwell and feed clean.

No hate meant, just trying to be helpful. I'm the friend that guys bring their stuff to and aside from poorly assembled 9mm ar's, x39 is the most troublesome that comes across my bench.

 

[IronsKeeper]

If you're paying for the ammo, I'll gladly stick with 300BLK! The fact is that 7.62x39 is substantially cheaper, and ballistically is approximately 200fps quicker than 300BLK, given equal barrel lengths and similar weight bullets. Expensive x39 is essentially where cheap 300BLK begins.

Appreciate the input, and all of those points have been considered at length.

Bolts and magazines tend to be the major failure points. CPD magazines are roughly the same price as current gen Pmags and 300BLK specific mags.

The only BCA component on the pistol is the barrel.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

20-30cpr .300BLK is being released this month. Wolf steel. Cheap enough?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[dbg326]

20-30cpr .300BLK is being released this month. Wolf steel. Cheap enough?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Definitely gets it in the conversation, and may explore the caliber in the future.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Areoflyer09]

20-30cpr .300BLK is being released this month. Wolf steel. Cheap enough?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

That still ranges from a bit more to almost double the cost/rd of x39. It is substantially cheaper than brass 300BO though.

For reference, my order of Wolf Classic this week was .183 cents/rd. Which is pretty much what I’ve always paid for x39 to feed my AR.

 

[teddy12b]

Feels kinda ironic to me, my first ar I had was a dissipator then I sold the second one to you. I always liked the look of a dissy in a stubby stock. The irony lays in the fact that I had a stubby stock on it at one point in time.

I'm glad it's at a good home!



and other configurations...

Man I appologize, but what rifle did I buy from you? It's been a years and AR's ago?

 

[Zephri]

Man I appologize, but what rifle did I buy from you? It's been a years and AR's ago?

Whoops! looking back at my PM's it looks like I didn't sell you my dissy (you did pm me about it though), serves me right for playing on the forums while sick lol.

 

[IronsKeeper]

Since I helped derail us, here's my favorite rifle.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[teddy12b]

Whoops! looking back at my PM's it looks like I didn't sell you my dissy (you did pm me about it though), serves me right for playing on the forums while sick lol.

It's all good. I've been on here long enough I've bought and sold enough guns I've lost track of who what when where. Anymore I put them up on consignment at the same place so I least I remember where it went through.

 

[Rookie]

New thermal, new gun.

 

[KJQ6945]

New thermal, new gun.

And a new tripod.
That thermal is tiny, what is it? Tell us more.

 

[Rookie]

https://www.nightgoggles.com/shop/t...4759112.2231700420379638671875&v=f24485ae434a

I posted a review in another forum.

I got my hogster-r in today, and I figured I'd give a little side by side comparison with my Trijicon IR Hunter MK3. If I don't hit on anything you might be curious about, feel free to ask. A few disclaimers...

1. These observations are based on initial assessment of the hogster-r. I don't have any field time yet.
2. These opinions are strictly mine and they may change.

Onto the comparison...

Weight.

The hogster-r blows the Trijicon out of the water. There is a VERY noticeable difference.

View finder.

The Trijicon wins this. The eye relief on the hogster-r sucks in comparison to the Trijicon. If I set the hogster-r the same way on my rifle, it looks like I'm looking through a tube.

Clarity.

This actually surprised and impressed me. While the Trijicon is better, it's not $5,000 better. The Trijicon has a sharper image, but I feel like the hogster-r has a clearer image. I know that sounds confusing, but it's hard to explain. I'm sure some of it has to do with contrast adjustment, but, for now, hogster-r has the edge in clarity, but not sharpness.

Controls.

Hands down, the IR Hunter beats everything out there. In my opinion, there's nothing better. The hogster-r has usable controls, but they are what they are.

Focus.

Once again, Trijicon wins without trying. Of course, Trijicon has "auto focus" so it will always beat manual focus.

Reticle.

Trijicon edges out simply because it's "intelligent enough" to change reticle color. Honestly, I don't really like the reticle on either scopes, but either ones are usable.

Zoom.

Trijicon wins. To be fair, Trijicon has a 640 core, so it better win. Hogster-r has usable zoom, but it's not as good. The PIP is a nice feature I wish the Trijicon had.


Price.

This is kind of tough. Obviously, the hogster-r is almost 4 times cheaper, but I'm comparing 2x magnification to 4.5x magnification. So, for my hunting needs, the Trijicon is better.

Final thoughts...

If Bering optics came out with a 3.5-4.5x magnification for $3,000-4,000, they wouldn't be able to keep up with demand. The Trijicon is a better thermal, but it's not $5,000 better. If Bering Optics came out with more native magnification, Trijicon would have some serious competition.

 

[KJQ6945]

Very nice rookie. Glad to see more options available.

 

[roscott]

Thanks for the comparison Rookie! Looks like you stepped up to a larger caliber too?

 

[Rookie]

6mm creedmoor