[WaterDR]

Finally caved in.....spent under $350 for a Palmetto.

Anyone else have one from them?

 

[MacCool]

PSA rifles are not particularly well-regarded on most of the AR-specific websites, and their customer service tends to be...uh...spotty in my experience buying ammo and some parts from them over the years.


How does yours shoot?

 

[halfmoonclip]

The devil is in the details when it comes to ARs, even tho' they all look alike. See how it runs, and save your money for a Colt.
Now's the time to get one; prices are down, and there are panics to come. If nothing else, stock up on GI magazines.
Moon

 

[WaterDR]

It’s not in yet. I don’t expect miracles but the reviews are all good that I have seen.

 

[Jaake]

Good luck with it. Hope you enjoy it. I love shooting my ARs. I even picked up a S&W MP AR22 to shoot on the cheap and for when I go to the indoor range. I have a Springfield Saint and a Savage Recon. They both shoot excellent up to the 200 yards the outdoor range has. Beyond that I don’t know .... lol

I’m sure you’ll enjoy your new rifle!

 

[muckaleewarrior71]

Welcome to the AR club. I finally dropped and bought one last year because the price was so good. It's been to the range just once with about 75 rounds through it. I guess I'm more of a handgun guy because those are what I prefer shooting. ARs are like my golf game, been there done that and didn't get hooked. I still have a nice set of clubs and an AR with multiple empty mags but plenty of ammo.

 

[2BNKS]

The money you saved will be spent(plus more) in accessories, optics, mags and a decent case. You will change the stock in its life. Add a rail system, rear and or front sight change.....the changes are endless. Instead of a Christmas fund next year.....AR fund.

 

[halfmoonclip]

One of the challenges of AR ownership is figuring what to shoot at. If a range permits it, clay birds on a berm are entertaining. We have a hardened clanger at camp.
Jaake's notion of a .22 trainer (the Smith especially) is a good one.
Moon

 

[surrealone]

Finally caved in.....spent under $350 for a Palmetto.

Anyone else have one from them?

I have a PSA 'complete classic lower' in the safe -- purchased on the cheap for the sole purpose of resale in an environment of hyper-elevated AR-15 and/or gun prices resulting from a political shift to the left. There's an AR-15 for every budget and PSA falls on the lower end of the scale in terms of price … but that doesn't make their gear 'crap', it just means it's budget-friendly.

I guess I'm more of a handgun guy because those are what I prefer shooting. ARs are like my golf game, been there done that and didn't get hooked.

You seem to suggest mutual exclusivity between pistols/handguns and AR's. Very technically the attached photo is of a pistol/handgun. Similarly, the 5'5" barreled SIG MCX Rattler PSB is a pistol/handgun built on the AR-15 platform. i.e. Just because it's built on the AR-15 platform does not mean it's got to be a rifle.

 

[muckaleewarrior71]

No suggestions from here and that’s not my cup of tea either.

 

[WaterDR]

I’ll go one of two ways with this.....leave it alone...stay cheap...shoot a few times now and then and keep in the safe. Get it out for friends and family.

Or....get hooked 🙂

I am currently not much of a rifle guy. My only other ones are a .22 and a PCC9 which I adore.

 

[MacCool]

When I buy firearms, I tend to focus on the demonstrated quality of the firearm rather than the price point. Personally, I wouldn't want a gun on the basis of it being "a good gun for the money"....I'm more inclined to focus on whether on not it's a good gun and the price of it is a distant secondary consideration. But that's me....others have different expectations for the firearms that they buy.


Everyone is different in their firearms preferences but I have never had a totally satisfactory experience buying "budget-friendly" firearms.

 

[surrealone]

When I buy firearms, I tend to focus on the demonstrated quality of the firearm rather than the price point. Personally, I wouldn't want a gun on the basis of it being "a good gun for the money"....I'm more inclined to focus on whether on not it's a good gun and the price of it is a distant secondary consideration. But that's me....others have different expectations for the firearms that they buy.


Everyone is different in their firearms preferences but I have never had a totally satisfactory experience buying "budget-friendly" firearms.

I do the same -- i.e. buy as much gun as I can afford. That said, there tends to be diminishing returns past a certain pricepoint. When it comes to lowers and their requisite parts, though, milspec is milspec. So what makes a $300 complete lower that's fitted with a milspec buffer tube and milspec lower parts kit better than a $129 complete lower that's also fitted with a milspec buffer tube and milspec lower parts kit? Typically two things: 1) finish (often expressed via furniture) and 2) what the buyer is willing to pay.

That's the nice thing about AR's -- milspec is milspec. Granted, a lot of them claim to (key words: 'claim to') exceed military specifications, but as long as milspec (or more accurately, MIL-SPEC if you want to get technical) is maintained as a floor for part quality/interchangeability/interoperability when choosing what to buy, there's hardly a wrong/bad choice when it comes to functionality. Form/finish is a different matter -- one that's always in the eye of the beholder.

The very definition of 'quality' entails standards being in place … and measurements against those standards. Thus, 'quality' entails something measurable, quantifiable, and verifiable; it is not subjective. What I'm driving at is:

• beyond the objective, measurable fact as to whether something was or wasn't built to MIL-SPEC, perception of 'quality' is subjective sans substantial design, test, and proof/demonstration efforts that produce a demonstrable and measurably superior result. (Most AR's and AR parts on the higher end lack the proof/demonstration component that would allow you to both trust AND verify/validate that they are measurably superior to their MIL-SPEC equivalents, hence the subjectivity in most cases.)
• perceived (and especially measurable/verifiable) 'quality' improvements tend to be tied to higher prices (due to design, testing, proving/documenting, and other such costs) … which means you can't really say you tend to focus on 'quality' rather than the price point since they're almost always related ... especially in cases where a demonstrable and measurably superior result has been produced.

Sadly, much of what's to be had in the AR-world touts how much better it is than X, Y, or Z ... but it's rare to see actual, demonstrable proof of these claims, as the only effective way for vendors to do so is through destruction testing to the point of failure … while under close observation (i.e. high speed cameras using appropriate instruments to measure temperatures, pressures, and other such forces) resulting in the production of observable, verifiable proof of superior quality. Most companies just don't do this testing AND serve up the evidence, thereof. With no evidence of such claims for us to verify, we'd be fools to consider the claims to be … facts. And without verifiable facts, well, the 'quality' improvements about which we're talking are merely subjective perceptions, aren't they?

Put another way: much of what's purchased 'because it's better' … tends to entail a leap of faith on the part of the buyer. I do it just like the next guy does … size something up to determine if it'll suffice for the given task, ideally using personal anecdotes, posted or stated experiences of others who have used/owned/had the same firearm or part, and some good, old-fashioned educated guesswork combined with an occasional prayer. I also try various things, myself, as experimentation can be fun -- but the guns and/or parts with which I do this are NOT things on which I stake my life!


Surreal


P.S. I'm not trying to pick nits. Rather, I'm underscoring that in nearly all cases, buyers are buying based on the perception of quality rather than on actual, by-definition, measurable, observable, verifiable 'quality'.

 

[Jaake]

Mil-spec is a term that’s thrown around a lot in the AR world. But in reality it has little to do with quality and more to do with size, shape and compatibility. Many components are manufactured to a higher level of quality then mil-spec. A lot of what the military accepts and gives contracts to has to do with a cost vs quality ratio. Like it or not. It’s no different then any other government contract. Mil-spec triggers are hardly the best. Mil-spec buffet tubes are about size and not fitment as many rattle.

 

[WaterDR]

When I buy firearms, I tend to focus on the demonstrated quality of the firearm rather than the price point. Personally, I wouldn't want a gun on the basis of it being "a good gun for the money"....I'm more inclined to focus on whether on not it's a good gun and the price of it is a distant secondary consideration. But that's me....others have different expectations for the firearms that they buy.


Everyone is different in their firearms preferences but I have never had a totally satisfactory experience buying "budget-friendly" firearms.

I have some pretty nice guns and some cheapos. Never had an issue with the cheapos really. They don’t look as nice and have less features but they all work. Heck...my GP100 Match is mirrored, trigger work, has an RMR and a custom, hand made holster.

But cheap **** has its place too 🙂

 

[BlitzPig]

I know several people that have Palmetto ARs, and none have had any issues, and a couple of the guys shoot the snot out of their rifles. I would not dis them out of hand simple because they are inexpensive.

That said I have a Rock River DCM National Match AR 15 that was my competition rifle, and an "assembled" mid length carbine with a BCM upper and a lower assembled by ADDCO that consists of an Aero Products lower, Rock River collapsing butt stock assembly, ADDCO's own parts and pins kit, and a Geissele two stage match trigger. It's a sweetheart.

 

[halfmoonclip]

One way to wade thru' the mallarkey is to buy a known brand with a good rep.
I mentioned Colt; there are certainly others.
What's good and what isn't is endlessly debated on the black rifle boards. I've taken the attitude that, down the road, an AR may be hard to get, and I want the best possible tucked away...tho' I shoot it too.
It's not a bad idea to tuck away a spare MilSpec bolt carrier group, and some small pins and springs as well. And magazines.

Moon

 

[MacCool]

That's the nice thing about AR's -- milspec is milspec. Granted, a lot of them claim to (key words: 'claim to') exceed military specifications, but as long as milspec (or more accurately, MIL-SPEC if you want to get technical) is maintained as a floor for part quality/interchangeability/interoperability when choosing what to buy, there's hardly a wrong/bad choice when it comes to functionality. Form/finish is a different matter -- one that's always in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think that's true at all. Almost all AR mfgrs claim milspec for their various parts whether they're made in the US with good quality steel/aluminum, tight machining tolerances, and quality control that examines a high percentage of parts and readily throws away the ones that don't closely match the tolerances....or bought in bulk from some offshore mfgr who stamps the suckers out all day long and ships them with NO QA whatsoever. Milspec is definitely not always milspec.

Sadly, much of what's to be had in the AR-world touts how much better it is than X, Y, or Z ... but it's rare to see actual, demonstrable proof of these claims, as the only effective way for vendors to do so is through destruction testing to the point of failure … while under close observation (i.e. high speed cameras using appropriate instruments to measure temperatures, pressures, and other such forces) resulting in the production of observable, verifiable proof of superior quality. Most companies just don't do this testing AND serve up the evidence, thereof. With no evidence of such claims for us to verify, we'd be fools to consider the claims to be … facts. And without verifiable facts, well, the 'quality' improvements about which we're talking are merely subjective perceptions, aren't they?

Any competent AR firearms trainer that runs carbine courses will gladly tell you EXACTLY what they think of the general crop of "budget-friendly" rifles, having seen them fail over and over and over again in situations where they're pushed...like a 3-day 2000-round carbine course.


If we're talking range toy that will see maybe 200-300 rounds per year shooting dirt clods "out back", then yes...not likely those rifles will ever be pushed hard enough to perform worse than a high-quality and expensive AR, and for many people that price-point rifle would fulfill its intended use perfectly well.

 

[MacCool]

I know several people that have Palmetto ARs, and none have had any issues, and a couple of the guys shoot the snot out of their rifles. I would not dis them out of hand simple because they are inexpensive.

I know a guy with a Hi-Point pistol that has worked perfectly well for him for several years.

 

[WaterDR]

Guys, I am not sure why this is a topic....seriously. There are Ferrari’s and there are Civics. So what?

I ain’t worried about the Zombie apocalypse or a Taliban invasion. Nor going to war.

If someone says”hey my civic meets my needs” it shouldn’t be a threat to someone who bought a Ferrari (though while cool and impressive, the Civic will just as perfectly take you to the store or ro work).

In all likelihood unless you are competing with the rifle, I am willing to bet the gun will last many thousands of rounds. In fact, someone has even reported on a 5,000 round torture test and it seemed to pass with flying colors.

Then there’s the fact that you could buy 3 or 5 rifles for the cost of one high-end one which would do a much better job defending your family if there were a zombie apocalypse 🙂