The Spike’s barrels are manufactured by Lothar-Walther, which is a highly respected barrel maker. LW50 is a stainless steel used by companies with excellent reputations for accuracy and quality, such as LaRue Tactical and Superior Barrels. And IonBond provides excellent wear and corrosion resistance. Everything that I knew about the barrel before I received it indicated that it would be a very good barrel.

I was wrong.

It’s an outstanding barrel.

My initial impression was that whoever turned this barrel is an artiste with a lathe. I have owned high end stainless barrels from Noveske, White Oak Armament, Sabre Defense, etc, and the quality of the machine work that went into this barrel is at least equal to any of them. I know, I know, this can be subjective. My opinion may also be due to the fact that I had just received a stainless “match” barrel that was roughly – bordering on poorly – machined. Clearly, the two machinists who worked on the two barrels had different priorities. On a side note, I paid less for this Spike’s product than I did for the other barrel.

Here are some images of the business end of the barrel to give you an idea of what I’m talking about.

There are many other things that make a barrel accurate, though – and the only way to tell if a barrel is decent is by hitting the range.

I went to a 600 yard match last month, but it was rained out, so I went to the 500 meter steel plate range instead. Being the generally unprepared soul that I am, I hadn’t zeroed the optic before the match, so I got a general 200 yard zero on a large steel plate before continuing on to longer ranges.

I hadn’t shot steel at distance in a long time, and I had forgotten how fun it was. I expended a fair amount of ammunition while smiling widely and going back and forth between 200, 300, 400, and 500 meter plates. Using the scope’s mil-dot reticle for range estimation, I had no problem with putting lead on steel in a very rapid manner, even if I went from 200 to 400 and back again. This ability to rapidly and accurately place rounds on target at distance is exactly why various militaries are looking to accurate AR platform rifles over bolt action rifles for certain roles.

Unfortunately, I burned through ammo so fast that I was scrounging in the back of my Jeep for more. I found a bag with about 50 rounds of 55gr FMJ handloads I had made a while back. These were loads intended for the Spike’s CHF upper – the cases hadn’t been sized properly and could not be hand cycled through any of my 5.56 ARs. The CHF upper, though, ate hundreds of such rounds without a hitch. I hesitated. Would this barrel, with a tighter Wylde chamber, function with said ammo?

The answer was yes. All 50 rounds fired without a single malfunction. Accuracy dropped off sharply after 400 meters, but it provided me with more steel-plate-killing fun for another ten minutes or so.

A friend, who is a President’s Hundred shooter, took an interest in the rifle. He even brought his own ammo! Using Mk262 (77gr match ammunition used by the military), he had no problems consistently hitting the head of a miniature ram silhouette at 500 meters – 560 yards.

Tomorrow, I plan to shoot the rifle for groups at 100 yards using various handloads. I have no doubt that this barrel will provide excellent results.

Well, Spike’s has a new upper out, and it’s definitely worth taking a look at, for several reasons. First, it’s of the highest quality. The only difference between this upper and the CHF upper is the method by which the barrel was manufactured – hammer forging versus the more traditional button rifling. The hammer forged version commands a premium, and it does offer distinct advantages, but it’s not as if the introduction of hammer forged barrels into the AR-15 market – a relatively recent event – rendered button rifled barrels obsolete. Only you can decide which version is best for your needs – if you’re on a budget, you’re probably better off spending the extra $100-150 or so on ammunition, mags, a lower, etc. If you have plenty of funds and want the added benefits of a hammer forged barrel, you can’t go wrong with one.

The second reason is price. The upper assembly is $525 – minus a temporary $50 rebate – that’s $475 including the bolt carrier group, handguards, charging handle, and a heavy buffer – the excellent ST-T2. This is an astonishing price. Several years ago, I paid only $40 less per assembly for a large quantity of much lower quality uppers. If you’re looking to build a rifle on a budget, or if you’re looking to build a top notch carbine, this is the upper for you.

As I was saying, this upper is of the highest quality. I’ll do a basic breakdown and discuss some of its features today, with a range report to follow tomorrow. As always, in the interests of honesty and openness, I was provided with this upper assembly free of charge for T&E purposes.

Here is the upper as received. It’s as M4 as M4 gets.

The upper receiver is laser marked with the Spike’s Tactical logo.

The front sight base is the proper height and is marked as such with an “F”.

The barrel is manufactured using 4150/CMV steel, with a 1/7 twist rate, utilizing an M4 barrel extension, reamed to 5.56 NATO specifications, proof tested, magnetic particle tested, and chrome lined.

The M16 bolt carrier group is laser marked with the Spikes logo and the gas key has been properly staked.

The bolt has been individually MP tested, and the extractor has a strong spring as well as the black rubber baby buggy bumper.

“But enough about features,” you say…”tell me something I wouldn’t know just by looking at the spec sheet on the Spike’s Tactical webpage.”

Well, I’m big on attention to detail. I am writing this article on a dusty computer which sits on a horribly messy desk in a messy office, so I can’t claim to be a neat freak. I do, however, pay attention to very minor things, because I’ve found that in the AR world, attention paid to the little things most often means that the overall piece is of high quality.

For example, I like it when things are properly indexed. A flash hider, for instance, or a FSB that has been attached in an absolutely vertical fashion. I failed to get a proper picture, but rest assured, both items were done perfectly on this upper.

Earlier today, I examined a Ruger SR556, which, among other things, had been assembled by someone who allowed the receiver extension tube to rotate clockwise about 3 to 5 degrees when tightening the castle nut. This is easily avoidable. Furthermore, the castle nut was not staked, which is something I consider to be an absolute necessity whenever carrier tilt is even a remote possibility.

What does this sort of thing tell me? That the Spike’s Tactical upper was assembled by someone who took their time and cared to do the job right – possibly even following a checklist, the upper was so perfectly assembled – and the Ruger lower was assembled by someone who was probably hurrying to get as many lowers done as they could in a specified period of time.

Although I check these (and other) things regardless of manufacturer, it’s nice to see this level of attention to detail on a bargain-priced upper assembly. Sometimes I get an attitude – an attitude that I have to find something wrong with something - and that’s the attitude I had earlier tonight when I inspected the upper. However, I just couldn’t find fault, large or small, with the upper.

One additional item is test firing. The SR556 appeared to have been fired three to five times. I would be surprised to find that less than a full 30 round magazine had been fired from this Spike’s upper – and it’s not even a complete rifle! Even if I downgrade my estimate to 20 rounds per upper, this is a significant expenditure for a small company, and it’s unheard of at this price point.

As I said, I will continue my review tomorrow at the range. However, if my initial observations are correct, I will have a boringly reliable day.

However, recently, I’ve found myself needing – perhaps wanting is a better term – stuff that Surefire doesn’t offer.

I’ve been using some of the following products for a few months now, and I’m pretty impressed with what they have to offer.

Before I get started, I should explain a few things.

Your average Surefire 6P flashlight uses two 3 volt lithium batteries, type CR123. It has a xenon, or incandescent, bulb designed to be powered with 6 volts.

There are batteries that are similar in size, but are actually 3.7 volts. These are sometimes called RCR123A or 16340. If you delve into the world of rechargeable batteries, make sure that you know what you’re buying. If you see a 5 digit number for a battery, for example, this refers to the size of the battery – 16mm wide, 34mm long. An 18650 is 18mm wide, 65mm long, etc. Some won’t fit in regular Surefire bodies

Furthermore, LED drop ins – or replacement bulbs for Surefire and other flashlights – are not necessarily designed for 6 volts. Some are designed for only 0.8-4.2v, or a single AA (1.5v), CR123 (3v), 14500 (3.7v), 16340 (3.7v), or 18650 (3.7v) battery. Others are designed for 3.2-9 volts, or one or two 16340 or 18650s or two or three CR123s. Still more work with 3-18 volts…you can do the math. If you decide on a drop in, be sure that you understand the minimum and maximum voltages.

FiveMega 1xAA

The first item is from a company called FiveMega. It’s a flashlight body, designed to take a single AA battery, that fits a Surefire P60 bulb and head – that is, the same as the Surefire 6P/6P LED.

It has an integrated switch – “forward clicky”, meaning that the light comes on in a momentary fashion before it clicks and stays on. After the click, it doesn’t matter if you press the button slightly, the light will stay on. With a “reverse clicky” light, the light doesn’t come on until after the “click”, at which point you can use the momentary function by pressing the button forward to turn the light off – but if you go too far forward and click it, it’ll stay off. I prefer “forward clicky”, but it’s not impossible to learn how to use a reverse clicky light for most situations.

Certain readers will be pleased to know that this body is made in the USA and is definitely of the highest quality. The body will fit VTAC and Vltor light mounts designed for Executive series Surefires. Not having a tailcap means that the light can be fixed very far forward in the mount, if necessary for your application, without worrying about preventing the cap from being rotated. On the other hand, not having a tailcap also means that one cannot “lock out” the tailcap for travel or other purposes, preventing it from inadvertant activation. That’s probably the biggest drawback to this body. You can use 1.2-15.v AA or 3.7v 14500 (14mm wide, 50mm long) batteries, depending on the bulb you choose – you’ll get a lot more brightness from the 14500 rechargeables, but you’ll generally get longer battery life from AAs. Figure on 25-40 minutes with a 14500, or 2-3 hours with a AA, depending on the drop in and the battery. With a Malkoff M30 and a AA battery, output is fairly similar to a G2 LED (80 lumens). With that same drop in and a 14500 battery, output is over 235 (honest) lumens.

Solarforce L2/L2m/L2i

I was driven to purchase the FiveMega product because it offered something “different” – AA compatibility - and that’s also what drove me to look into the Solarforce line of lights.

While most “tactical” lights are powered by two CR123 batteries, there are other batteries that offer longer runtimes, more light, or both. Also, I don’t always need a two cell light.

Solarforce L2

That’s where the Solarforce L2 line comes in. The standard L2 has a larger inside diameter than the G2 or 6P in order to allow the use of a 3.7v 18650 battery – 18mm wide, 65mm long. This is approximately the size of two CR123s end to end, but is wide enough that it won’t fit in the average Surefire. Why would you want an 18650-powered light? Well, a 3 volt to 9 volt LED drop in that will provide a lot of light for an hour with 2 123s will provide nearly as much light for over 2 hours with an 18650. In addition, 18650s are rechargeable, which will save you a ton of money in the long run over buying 3v lithiums.

Solarforce L2m (with optional extender tube for 2x123 or 18650)

That’s all well and good, you say, but what about the L2m and and L2i? Well, the L2m is designed for a single CR123 or 16340 cell (16mm wide, 34mm long, slightly longer than a CR123, and 3.7v). If a more compact size is what you desire, this is the ticket. I should mention that FiveMega also makes a single CR123 body. Sans head, tailcap, bulb, and battery, it retails for $35. The Solarforce lights – body, head, and tailcap, no bulb or battery – retail for $15. One is American made, the other is Chinese made. The Solarforce stuff isn’t made to the exact same standards as Surefire or FiveMega, but it is pretty high quality, and it’s miles better than some other Chinese lights. One caveat, however, is that the L2m head and tailcaps I have don’t fit my Surefire 9P – and of the 2 L2ms, one has a 19mm bore (for use with an extender and an 18650) and the other has a 17mm bore (meaning that only a CR123 or 16340 will fit).

Solarforce L2i

Finally, I come to the L2i. This body also accepts Surefire bulbs and heads, but takes three AAA batteries in an internal carrier. Its outside diameter is a little larger than a standard 6P, so it’s not a good weapon light, but it’s a great choice for people who may not have an interest in flashlights – and therefore not much interest in the various rechargeable batteries. 3 AAAs provide enough voltage for an XP-G drop in (claimed output of anywhere from 270 to 345 lumens) to run for about 40 minutes at max brightness, then slowly dim over a period of about 2 hours to about 5 lumens. After that, I swapped in a Malkoff M30 module, and it provided nearly max brightness. I was told that this module would run for a long time on “run down” Surefire CR123 batteries that wouldn’t even power a G2, so I shouldn’t be surprised, but I was still impressed.

One other impressive feature is that the L2i will actually accept single 14500 and 18650 batteries. It’s best to use the 14500 batteries with a spacer for some added length, but it’s nice to know that with one body, I could conceivably use three different types of batteries.

Hybrids/Frankenlights/”Legos”

If you want a runtime increase while still using as many Surefire parts as possible, the Solarforce L2 body is fully compatible with Surefire heads and tailcaps. You can use an 18650 body with an appropriate (4.2v) drop in and your Surefire switch for maximum reliability. Such drop ins include the Solarforce LC-1 (0.8-4.2v, $20), ThruNite XP-G (3.2v-9v, $33), or Malkoff M30 (1v-5.5v, $55). You’ll get the best runtime with the Malkoff or the LC-1, which will run all the way down to 1 volt and 0.8 volts, respectively. However, you’d have to be careful not to use them with 2 CR123 cells, as that would be instantly fatal to the drop in. The XP-G, on the other hand, will work with 3 CR123s, 2 CR123s, an 18650, or a 16340. It won’t run off a single 3v CR123; although it’s claimed to be a 2.7v-9v drop in, I’ve found that it needs one of the 3.7v batteries to work.

You can even use a Surefire P60 LED drop in with a single 3.7v battery, if you’re so inclined – but output is only about 50 lumens.

From Left: ThruNite XP-G, FiveMega AA with Solarforce LC-1, Malkoff M30

Solarforce Reversible Pocket Clip

I choose to carry my “big” flashlight on my left (weak) side, clipped inside my front pocket. I carry “bezel down”, or “button up”. In addition to them being necessary for this style of carry, I prefer reversible pocket clips. Why? Well, when they inevitably snag on something and are pulled away from the light, you can do a quick field repair with a set of pliers to return them to a useful state. When I did the same with a “one way” pocket clip on a knife, I had to replace the clip. I could have repaired it with help from a vise, I guess, but I don’t carry a vise around in my car.

Solarforce L2 with Surefire tailcap and Solarforce pocket clip; Surefire 9P with Solarforce tailcap

Solarforce sells such a reversible clip. It fits any light that uses a Surefire “C” head (G2/6P/etc). You can find them on EBay for $5, or buy them from a store in the States for $10. They seem to hold up pretty well to daily use over a few months time, but we’ll see how they are faring a year from now.

Conclusion

Is the FiveMega AA body of the highest quality? Yes. Does it have some drawbacks? Yes. However, if you think you might be limited to AA type batteries, or you want to use AA type batteries and 14500 rechargeables, you’d be doing yourself a favor by looking at it.

Are the Solarforce products on par with Surefire or FiveMega? No. Are they of surprising quality, given their origin? Yes.

Would you be doing yourself a favor by checking out these products? Most definitely.

I’ll be doing a more extensive writeup on the drop-ins described here as soon as I can.

The ferocious buying frenzy dried up pretty rapidly.

Meanwhile, the economy continued to get worse. People continued to lose their jobs. Those who didn’t lose their jobs might still have had to deal with reduced hours or pay cuts.

All through this period, a number of people continued to hold out for the release of the Adaptive Combat Rifle (ACR), initially designed by Magpul Industries before a partnership with Bushmaster Firearms. It was reported to be a lightweight, reliable, and above all, affordable, carbine – an FN SCAR for the masses, if you will. It had been in development for years, and the release date kept getting pushed back.

Finally, though, a firm date – a release after SHOT 2010.

To say that anticipation had built up to tumultuous levels would be a drastic understatement. The years of waiting were over. The product was all but in the hands of thousands – probably tens of thousands – of fans.

Release, Sweet Release

Until the details started to roll out.

Rate of twist – 1 in 9. “An innovative coating for long life” – not chrome lining.

Weight – over 8 pounds unloaded. Initial claims were in the 6 and a half pound range.

Models – “Basic” and “Enhanced”. The Basic model does not have a folding stock or a railed forend. The Enhanced model does, but…

Price –  MSRP is $2685 for the Basic and $3061 for the Enhanced. While many could put up with all of the above, this proved to be a deal breaker for many, who had planned on spending no more than $1500, perhaps $1800, based on figures released by Magpul and/or Bushmaster.

Many chose to take their frustration out on Magpul. It had been claimed by both Magpul and Bushmaster that the two companies were “partnered” on the project. Several forum posts by Magpul higher-ups scoffed at – or insulted – claims of high MSRPs or other issues by various posters (I was not among them). This has not helped their cause in light of the above information.

However, I feel that anger with Magpul is essentially unwarranted. In my opinion, Magpul made one major mistake – partnering with Bushmaster. When that was announced in early 2008, I lost all interest in the project. I was skeptical of Bushmaster’s ability to deliver the right product at the right price. Anyone who was interested in the ACR should have vented their frustrations with Magpul at that point.

Problems/Explanations/Opinions

Note: the following is almost entirely speculation. It’s entirely possible that I’m wrong about everything you read from this point on.

It now appears that Bushmaster had led Magpul to believe that they had a much larger role in the project than they actually did. The Magpul folks are pretty savvy when it comes to PR – just look at their website. They wouldn’t respond the way they did to pre-release criticism unless they really believed what they were saying. Bushmaster may have been  treating them like a mushroom. Oh, and Bushmaster probably smiled and nodded whenever Magpul may or may not have had input on the project.

As of early 2009, a Remington ACR prototype exhibited signs of overgassing at an industry shoot (Which causes me to ask the question – if it didn’t run right in 2009, how was it running in 2007 or 2008, when Bushmaster took over the project? After all, the anticipation for the rifle was built almost entirely on hype, not concrete knowledge that the design was ready for production as of Q4 2007). I am entirely certain that those problems have been fixed prior to the release of the weapon – however, one way to fix that problem is to increase the weight of the reciprocating assembly. Many people malign the AR-15’s buffer tube without understanding the vital role that it plays in the operation of the weapon. Without that buffer assembly, a heavier bolt or carrier or other associated parts may be required for perfect function in all conditions.

One forumite jokingly suggested the excessive use of tungsten as an explanation for the ACR’s relatively massive weight gain. He may not be far from the truth. The weapon has what is for all intents and purposes a government profile barrel, light weight under the handguards, which is what most AR-15 carbines have – yet those carbines weigh just over 6 pounds in stock configuration. In addition, the ACR makes use of several polymer parts that should reduce their weight compared to the aluminum parts used in an AR-15.

This leaves the bolt and carrier assembly as a likely source for the weight gain, especially when one considers the issues that the ACR exhibited. Nearly 2 additional pounds means that there is a serious chunk of metal somewhere in the rifle.

And that’s not even the (heavier) model with the folding stock and the railed forend, which has a $3061 MSRP.

To be fair, products rarely sell at or above their MSRP for very long, unless there is a lot of demand. We’ll see just how much demand remains for the ACR in a few months, but even a $2400/$2700 street price would place the rifle solidly at or above FN SCAR territory. Furthermore, the ~$2450 SCAR comes standard with a railed forend and a folding stock. Moving down in price, we see offerings from LWRC between $1800 and $2400, the KAC SR15E3 for $1800-$2200, and the Robinson Arms XCR for $1600-$1800. Every single one of those rifles is significantly lighter and offers more features than the ACR Basic model. In addition, every one – with the possible exception of the XCR – comes from a company with a lot of well-earned “street cred” in military, police, or civilian circles (or all of the above).

I won’t bother discussing the barrel for very long, but suffice it to say that a 1/9 M4 profile barrel that the manufacturer refuses to divulge finish specifications for is not going to inspire confidence or a long line of willing buyers. The only remotely (but not completely) rational explanation I’ve heard for buying a 1/9 barrel is the use of 36-40gr varmint bullets. Does Bushmaster think that varmint shooters will line up to buy an 8 1/2 pound piston operated carbine with what is essentially (for accuracy purposes) a lightweight barrel – for $2500-$3000?

Apparently they do.

Furthermore, the USMC doesn’t want to completely abandon the extra velocity offered by the M16A4, and is apparently looking forward to future conflicts as well. “Every Marine a Rifleman” is probably not far back in the equation, as well.

Therefore, what the Marine Corps could do is make its current rifles more maneuverable and adaptable to different situations, different Marines, and different amounts of gear worn by said Marines. I’m speaking, of course, about a collapsible stock. However, the solution is not as easy as attaching a carbine lower to a rifle upper. While many who shoot brand new semi automatic rifles will never know of the potential issues, on full auto – or with a well used rifle on semi – MRBS (mean rounds between stoppages) drops to merely 30. This is reportedly a result of bolt bounce.

Bolt bounce occurs when the bolt, propelled forward by the action spring, makes contact with the barrel extension at high speed. As metal objects are prone to do when they come in contact with one another at high speed, they “bounce” apart. In this case, the bolt partially unlocks. With either the M4 or the M16A4, this is where the buffer comes in. The weight inside the buffer slams forward a moment after the bolt has gone into battery, preventing it from bouncing back by adding just the right amount of force to the equation.

The 3 ounce carbine buffer and carbine spring, however, are insufficient for the rifle gas system, which is normally used in conjunction with a 5.2 ounce buffer and a longer spring. One could, as the Canadians have done with their version of the M16 series rifle, simply use a heavier buffer, which would eliminate some of these issues. However, this means reduced compatibility with other weapons as well as a wide variance in carrier velocities and other consistency-related issues.

Enter Vltor Weapons Systems, manufacturer of a variety of firearms and accessories, from the upcoming Bren Ten to popular stocks like the EMod and receivers such as the MUR and VIS. Vltor developed a 7 position buffer tube that is slightly longer than the standard carbine tube, attached the excellent EMod stock to it, and also developed three buffers – up to 7 ounces – and a non-carbine spring for the system. Not only does it work with the M16A4, but it functions with the M4 and systems in between as well – in fact, Vltor says it works with all direct impingement AR-15s. The heavier buffers are recommended by Vltor for over-gassed carbines or piston systems.

This may be the ideal solution for both the USMC and civilian shooters that want to ensure that they have the best buffer system available for their AR-15s. I’m definitely looking forward to getting my hands on a system and testing it against the regular A2 stock in a rifle configuration, and other buffer systems such as the Spike’s ST-T2 in the carbine format.

They fit just fine in my Interceptor, but when other plate carriers were used, the rear, which was countoured differently than the front, would not fit.

Even after I had owned them for 6 months, the company offered to swap out the rear for a front plate (for a 20% fee – very reasonable in my opinion, since they would have had to X-ray the plate before reselling it).

However, I decided to test the plate myself, and see if it really did what they claimed – stop multiple shots of .30-06 armor piercing ammunition without any supporting soft armor.

Here is a video of the test.

The plate did indeed stop 3 shots of .30-06 AP (163gr hardened steel penetrator projectiles courtesy of Rich_V on AR15.com), as well as many other rounds.

The plate allowed part of one .308 projectile, as well as 4 5.45×39mm projectiles, to penetrate.

However, these hits were in rather close proximity to other impacts. Because this was a ceramic plate, the initial impacts fractured the plate (it’s designed to absorb the impact this way) and the later projectiles “slipped through” the cracks.

Even after it had been shot over a dozen times, and it had literally come apart, it still stopped XM193 5.56×45 and a 12ga slug.

Overall, I’m very impressed with the performance of this plate, especially considering the cost ($270). I’d still probably wear soft armor underneath the plates, given the chance, but at least I know that the plate exceeds the manufacturer’s claims.

Within the week, I hope to complete a similar comparison during the day, which will focus on different attributes of the devices.

I must apologize – several video files were corrupted and I was unable to add them – namely, the performance of the PWS FSC556 on the 5.56 rifle and the performance of the PWS TTO on the 5.56 rifle while night vision equipment was being used. However, their performance with the 5.45 rifle is in the video.

Edit 1/2/10: I’ve completed a video taken from the shooter’s perspective, or as close to it as I could get.

Everyone in the community – from the weekend shooter to the servicemember defending our country overseas – has benefited as a result of this veritable explosion of new products and ideas.

Some of these products and ideas are surprisingly affordable. What the following products all did for me, though, was make me say “oh”. As in, this is an “oh” product – the kind of product that you just don’t really understand until you use one, and then you say “oh”.

1. Spike’s Tactical ST-T2 Buffer – $30

Many AR-15 carbines (specifically, 14.5″ and 16″ carbine length ARs) have reciprocating assemblies that are simply too light. While a high rate of fire sounds cool on paper, in extreme cases, a weapon that is cycling too fast can outrun the magazine spring, which will immediately result in some sort of malfunction.

In addition, standard buffers have weights that move a short distance in order to ensure that the bolt goes into battery and stays there (in extreme conditions, the bolt can bounce back out of battery slightly) – they slam forward inside the buffer after it has returned to its “rest” position, much like a dead blow hammer.

However, this additional fore and aft movement can give the impression of greater recoil. What Spike’s did was to replace the cylindrical weights inside the buffer with heavy tungsten powder. The powder still provides that extra insurance against bolt bounce, if not more insurance against bolt bounce, while reducing felt recoil. I’ll go out on a limb and say that according to my informal, unscientific observations, the ST-T2 buffer provides an amount of recoil reduction that might challenge some small muzzle brakes.

2. Magpul BAD – $30

It’s affordable, it’s well made, it’s easy to install, it’s simple, it’s unobtrusive, and it gives you more options when it comes time to let the bolt fly home. But it also lets you lock the bolt to the rear without removing your firing hand from its proper position – that is, in my opinion, a very nice benefit. This will allow you to clear certain malfunctions faster. This is a good thing. It is, simply, a very effective device.

3. Bravo Company USA BCMGUNFIGHTER Charging Handle – $45

This is definitely an “oh” product. I didn’t think that I needed to replace my charging handles until I was sent a GFH by Bravo Co. Not only is this product stronger than the “standard” model – via design changes and high materials standards – but it greatly reduces the effort required to manipulate the charging handle. I can finally do what I was trained to do – use the knife edge of my hand against the charging handle – without slipping off the standard latch or worrying about an extended latch breaking the charging handle. The GFH does all that for about the cost of a “regular” charging handle and an extended latch. It’s a no brainer to me.

Other people want the most rugged and reliable product they can afford.

Still more people just want a product that looks cool and functions fairly well.

I can’t tell you what your needs are, or where you fall on this scale, but I can tell you what this product does, and what it might be good for. As always, in the interests of full disclosure, I was given this “Micro Dot” by Primary Arms for the specific purpose of abusing it. In the past, I was given a Bobro Aimpoint mount for T&E by this same vendor (Marshall at Primary Arms – and he hasn’t asked for me to return it yet…I’m not going to give it up easily).

The first thing you need to know about this optic is that it is a semi-clone of the Aimpoint T-1  – or maybe I should say H-1, since this has no NV-specific settings and is not waterproof to the same depth. This particular model has a threaded “killflash” that is of surprising quality and effectiveness. Thus, the optic looks a little longer than a regular H-1.

The original price for the optic was $109 plus $29 for a riser, but because the factory messed up and the units aren’t purged with nitrogen, the price has been dropped $30. If you want the model without the killflash, the adjusted price is $59 plus $29 for the riser.

I’ll start with my negative comments.

The Bad

- The “QD” lever included with the riser, which is a copy of the American Defense lever, is not very well constructed. It’s small and difficult to manipulate. It’s not constructed of the best materials. It is, however, a good enough copy of the ADM lever that real ADM components will drop in and offer a functional level of fit. Frankly, I’d just buy a Daniel Defense mount for $70 or so, instead of the included riser – although it has been hollowed out and if you happen to have spare ADM components, it’ll work very well. I’m told that the next iteration of these red dots will have a thumbscrew mount.

- The LED inside the optic is a little high and blocks a small portion of the field of view. This also precludes proper cowitness when using aftermarket mounts.

- Battery life seems to be about a week, maybe 8 days, of continuous use. This isn’t really bad, per se, it’s just something to be aware of. The unit takes commonly available CR 2032 batteries. For a training rifle, this should not be an issue.

- As I said before, the factory messed up – they drilled the mounting screw holes too deep and the units may have fogging problems if the standard “low” mount is swapped for a different mount. Several people, including myself, have attempted to induce fogging. I put it in a bathtub under running, scalding water, then into a freezer, then back into the tub. I noticed no fogging on the inside of the optic. The front glass under the killflash did fog, but that was on the outside, and I had no problems wiping that clear after removing the killflash.

- The dot does not stay on between brightness settings. Also, it rotates continuously. There is no “stop” at 0.

- Yes, it’s made in China.

The Good

- This optic is quite durable. You can see this here.

- It maintained zero after the above abuse. I don’t know if my “custom fit” ADM throw lever has anything to do with it (yes, the nut is sticking out of the mount, it works fine). Standard Aimpoint Micro mounts should work for this optic.

- Adjusting the brightness takes a good grasp of the knob. An errant blow to the knob will most likely not change the brightness. Clicks are tactile and barely audible.

- The killflash, battery cover, and adjustment caps have good threads and were easy to install and remove, even after big dents were put in them. The adjustment and battery caps/covers have O rings. The unit seems water-resistant as far as my bathtub was concerned. I may take it on a dive trip later this week.

- The dot is clear and crisp. On setting 11, it is definitely bright enough to use when the sun is out.

In Summary

For those who have an Aimpoint Micro on a work gun, this may be a cost-effective alternative to spending another $500-600 to put one on a .22 or 5.45 training rifle. Alternately, you could use a .22 conversion in your work rifle and swap between an Aimpoint Micro zeroed for 5.56 and a Primary Arms micro zeroed for .22. It’s definitely durable enough that you won’t have to worry about it being damaged from a minor impact. I have had similar good luck with a Primary Arms M3 clone, which I compared with the Vortex Strikefire here.

I firmly believe, and so does the man who runs Primary Arms, that duty/deployment use calls for a real Aimpoint. Primary Arms does sell real Aimpoints. If your needs call for the most rugged red dot available, buy an Aimpoint. If you need an affordable duplicate for training or other purposes, consider the PA Micro Dot.

I used to have a copy and paste response for this whenever someone on AR15.com would ask. Two questions.

“What is your budget, and what do you want to do with it?”

It’s easier to come up with an answer to the first question, I’ve found: many would respond “As little as possible.”

Well then, I would say to myself, what was your answer to the second question? I would cringe when I saw something like “patrol rifle”. A plinker or range toy does not require the best of everything – unless one simply wishes to avoid as many potential issues as possible. Using the cheapest stuff possible, however, is simply not advisable for a police officer who needs a patrol rifle, or anyone who wants to put more than a few tin cans on the line.

Needs vs. Wants

The question I want to ask these people is “Do you really need an AR-15?”

No, I’m not approaching this from the perspective of a gun grabber. For many people, though, buying an AR-15 is an unnecessarily large expense. If I wanted a rifle to have fun with, shoot varmints, teach new shooters, etc, I’d buy a .22, bolt action or semi auto. I would most likely save $500 or more on the initial purchase price, and get 20 times as much ammunition for my money. You won’t be turned away from any indoor ranges with a .22, either. I can honestly say that the best purchase I have ever made was a $39 bolt action Romanian .22LR rifle. For smiles per dollar, nothing else comes close.

If I just wanted a cool looking rifle that I could theoretically use for more than the above purposes, but I wanted to spend the smallest amount of money possible, I’d buy some sort of AK variant. 5.45×39 ammunition is very cheap right now, and 5.45 AKs can be had in the $400-500 range. 7.62×39 AKs are also affordable, and the ammunition is generally cheaper than .223 Remington/5.56 NATO. As much as I love AR-15s, I’d take a $500 AK over a $500 AR.

But if I needed a reliable, accurate, easy to use, versatile, and compact rifle (carbine), the pool of suitable weapons narrows dramatically. The weapon at the top of the heap, in my mind, is a good AR-15.

Saving Money vs. Spending Money

The problems start when people see an AR on the shelf at a local gun store for, say, $750. And they could probably swing $750 for that rifle. What does it come with? One magazine, a sling from the 19th century, and a photocopy of a US military manual for the M16. Many “flat top” AR-15s don’t even come with a rear sight. Okay, so you buy a cheap Chinese-made UTG rear sight for $30. Now you need ammunition. Enough to fill the magazine will probably run about $10-15. What’s that, you say? You actually want to shoot more than 30 rounds? Okay, there’s a 500 round case of “Military Contract 55gr 5.56mm” in the corner for $180. Great. Now you’ve put close to a $1000 dent in your bank account (or credit card).

For that $750, you could have bought a Ruger 10/22 and over 22,000 rounds of .22LR at Wal-Mart. Or a 5.45 AK and 2160 rounds of surplus ammunition. With the extra money you spent on 500 rounds of .223, you could have bought another mountain of 22LR or a small hill of 5.45. Alternately, you could buy some jewelry for your wife or girlfriend, in an attempt to placate her after bringing home a firearm.

If you just want something that looks like what “them boys overseas” carry, fine. Just don’t think that your spending days are over with the initial purchase of the rifle, unless you plan to do nothing more than hang it on the wall and stare at it. If so, then it doesn’t really matter what you buy.

Choices

Okay, you’ve decided that you need (or really want) an AR-15.

You decide to browse some internet forums in order to learn more. There, you find all sorts of conflicting information. Some people say Brand X; others say Brand Y. Still more say that a blend of Brands X, Y, and Z is the best combination.

Then there are things like the “tier system” and a mysterious “chart” that many people seem to intensely dislike.

It would be impossible for me to answer this question in one easy to digest blog post.

I will say that the best thing you can do is to buy a quality upper receiver assembly. Most of the potential problems one might encounter with the AR-15 are eliminated with a good upper assembly. There are a number of companies offering truly top notch upper assemblies for very good prices at the moment – Daniel Defense, Spike’s Tactical, and Bravo Company, to name a few. You can take that upper assembly and, in seconds, install it on a complete lower assembly, which will normally run about $230-300 for “average” parts, and the end result will be a high quality rifle for under $1000.

Sure, you could walk into a gun store and spend $750-1000 on a Bushmaster or Rock River AR, but you’d be paying an extra 11% in the form of a federal excise tax over the cost of buying the upper and lower separately. You’re trying to save money – right? So why pay an extra 11% if you don’t have to? Put that 11% to work in the form of higher quality parts.

Further Information

There are resources for those who want to learn more. Generally, a “tacked” post at the top of forums like AR15.com and M4Carbine.net is full of reliable and useful information. “The Chart” offers a comparison of the features offered by various models of M4-type weapons. Reading the “after-action reports” of various carbine courses – available on various forums – will provide insight as to how certain weapons perform with rapid firing schedules.

I know it seems as if I’ve tried to talk people out of buying ARs, and honestly, I have. However, there are requirements that other weapons will meet and exceed for less money than an AR-15 – and there are requirements that the AR-15 will meet and exceed that the others cannot even meet. Only you know exactly what your specific needs/requirements are. Base your purchase on those needs, and best of luck with whatever you buy.