PDA

View Full Version : Why is RRA (AR 15) so bad?


briang2ad
August 20, 2010, 06:26 AM
When I post anything about RRA, folks trash them - even the lowers. I know that they are pretty far LEFT on the chart, but they advertise 1" groups with Black Hills ammo. So... why so bad? When Milspec is 2" at 100, why is RRA trash?

Also, while chrome lined bores seem to be the minimum standard for an AR, and RRA generally doesn't put them on sub $1000 guns, why is the chrome lined thing all the rage? 5.56 is all non-corrosive. Some say NON-chromed is more accurate.

Hoskins
August 20, 2010, 07:15 AM
I have no clue!? I have owned one since 2003. My wife bought it for me as a welcome home from Iraq, you survived present!:D

I love mine. It is a post-ban M4 Entry Tactical. It shoots great, is reliable, & very well built. I have zero complaints with this rifle. If I was allowed to take it to combat instead of my issued M4...I would...just as long as I got to use my issued PEQ-15 (Infrared & laser pointer) & RCO (ACOG).

Pics of weapon as an attachment included. Old pics, will take newer pics & post at a later time. Also, I posted (2) other pics on this thread: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=419222

madcratebuilder
August 20, 2010, 07:16 AM
Why the hate? Brand snobs. I'll bet that 75% of the trash talkers have never handled the fire arm they are trashing. It's an internet farce.

Chrome barrels may last longer are more forgiving on cleaning. Non chrome can be more accurate. I don't have a chrome lined barrel on my Noveske N6, don't want one.

Don't worry about what other people say about your choice of brands. RRA builds a good AR, I've shoot them and know guys that have them. They shoot like all the rest of them. IMHO 70% of all fire arm problems are owner induced.

lmccrock
August 20, 2010, 07:20 AM
"The chart" is a list of features which some consider minimum to buy a rifle for a purpose, that being a fighting rifle. Some of us are not going into combat and do not need those features....or we want better for our purpose. For instance, I want to shoot a wider variety of ammo, so a 1:8" twist is better for me than 1:7" twist.

As for chrome lined - good for hard use environments and/or full auto. I get to clean my guns every day so I do not choose to pay extra for chrome. That said, people I trust say it is hard to see an accuracy difference between chrome and not, if the chrome is well done and the barrel is good.

Lee

Technosavant
August 20, 2010, 08:46 AM
I'm not aware that RRA is bad.

Remember that "the chart" is just a listing of features. Some may matter to you, some may not. It's just a graphical representation of how the various makers stick to the official requirement for the platform insofar as they are able for a civilian rifle.

As for chrome lining, it is slightly less accurate than a non-chromed barrel. It has to do with tolerances; chrome lining ends up with less consistency than an unchromed barrel. However, for a rifle intended for combat accuracy, the drop isn't that much- MOA accuracy is still possible with a chromed barrel. Where it pays off is in ease of cleaning and resistance to corrosion. Even when firing noncorrosive ammo, you still need to clean the thing, and chroming gives a bit more lubricity in the chamber- with the DI design of the AR platform, it can sometimes make the difference between easy extraction of a steel cased round and the case sticking.

If I were to buy a rifle off the rack, RRA would be on the short list of companies I would consider, and they are certainly one of the ones with the more reasonable prices.

thesheepdog
August 20, 2010, 08:56 AM
I am not aware that RRA are bad either, actually the opposite.

jmorris
August 20, 2010, 09:02 AM
Nothing wrong with them.

As far as trashing the lowers some might be surprised to learn that the lower they have was built by the same company. Most all lowers, excluding billet ones, are made by a handful of companies and then the selling "manufacturer" cleans them up, stamps their logo on, and does the finish. here's a list of most of the manufacturer(s). Granted, the finish out and QC processes by the company that stamps their name on the side does vary:

Lewis Machine & Tool

LMT
Lauer
DS Arms
PWA
Eagle
Armalite
Knights Armament
Barrett

Continental Machine Tool

Stag
Rock River Arms
High Standard
Noveske
Century (New)
Global Tactical
CLE
S&W
MGI
Wilson Tactical
Grenadier Precision
Colt

LAR Manufacturing

LAR
Bushmaster
Ameetec
DPMS
CMMG
Double Star
Fulton Armory
Spike's Tactical

JVP

Double Star
LRB

Mega Machine Shop

Mega
GSE
Dalphon
POF
Alexander Arms

Olympic

Olympic
SGW
Tromix
Palmetto
Dalphon
Frankford
Century (Old)

Sun Devil
Sun Devil billet receivers

Superior
Superior Arms
__________________

precision_shooter
August 20, 2010, 09:23 AM
I did have an RRA Elite CAR A4, for quite a few years. NEVER had any problems out of it. Didn't want to sell it, but needed the money at the time. I just placed an order for one of these bad boys http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=464 with the Tactical Carry Handle/Rear Sight. Should have it in 30-45 days according to RRA....

Come to think of it, I've never known anyone personally that has owned a Rock River that did not love it.

To Each his own, but I will pay $1,000 for this gun every time over $1,600 for one that is more to the "RIGHT" of "the chart"!!!

JH1
August 20, 2010, 09:25 AM
I've owned three ar's, a colt competition hbar, a rock river entry tactical, and a dpms lo pro. The rra was the highest quailty of all three, including the colt. Also the most accurate. If I were gonna go buy a new one, rra would be first on the list.

demigod
August 20, 2010, 09:42 AM
Why the hate? Brand snobs. I'll bet that 75% of the trash talkers have never handled the fire arm they are trashing. It's an internet farce.

This is usually the argument that people who own Olympic Arms junk use. :rolleyes:

The Snobbery argument is childish and silly. There are QUANTIFIABLE differeneces between various gun manufacturors. Not everyone needs a 4150 mil spec barrel or a forged receiver extension, and that's cool. But to say it's snobbery when differences in materials and manufacturing yield stronger and longer lasting parts is idiotic.

As far as RRA... I've never read any complaints about their ARs.

espnazi
August 20, 2010, 10:16 AM
I personally dont own one, but for the money they charge it would not be first on my list. I'd go with a BCM.

As to Oly's being complete junk some may be but mine is not. works 100% with any kind of ammo.

Scorch
August 20, 2010, 11:02 AM
Why is RRA (AR 15) so bad?
Just an FYI- among target shooters, RRA is considered one of the top rifles to own. Don't know who told you any different, but they need a reality check. Now among the mall ninjas, maybe things are different . . .

Double Naught Spy
August 20, 2010, 02:39 PM
When I post anything about RRA, folks trash them - even the lowers. I know that they are pretty far LEFT on the chart, but they advertise 1" groups with Black Hills ammo. So... why so bad?

Why not ask the people who you say are trashing them in your threads?

"The chart" is a list of features which some consider minimum to buy a rifle for a purpose, that being a fighting rifle.

Interesting synopsis, but inaccurate. It makes no statements about minimums for a fighting rifle.

As noted here... http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pwswheghNQsEuEhjFwPrgTA&single=true&gid=5&output=html

Without the information in the explanations below, The Chart(s) that appears at the bottom of this page is all but worthless. It is critical, when considering an M4-pattern carbine, to ensure that you understand the list of features and can figure out for yourself if a specific feature is applicable to your intended use. If a sufficient number of the features below and on The Chart are not applicable to your use, then perhaps an M4-pattern carbine is not the right choice for you.

So, what is an M4-pattern carbine? The true M4 is a select-fire military-issue shortened version of the M16 with a collapsible stock, 14.5" barrel, and flat-top upper (with Picatinny rail system) in place of the old A2 carry handle. obviously what we are discussing here are non-NFA firearms which means that they are not select-fire and have a barrel length of at least 16".

The Chart ONLY pertains to M4 pattern carbines, not any other models. While the chart is mostly accurate as to features, manufacturers often change features as needed (such as caused by supply shortages) or for seemingly random reasons and times.

flight954
August 20, 2010, 03:16 PM
When I post anything about RRA, folks trash them - even the lowers. I know that they are pretty far LEFT on the chart, but they advertise 1" groups with Black Hills ammo. So... why so bad? When Milspec is 2" at 100, why is RRA trash?

All RRA products I own are rock solid. I've heard the same about their LAR-8 rifle. I own one and it's an accurate tack driving machine.

cgbills
August 20, 2010, 03:49 PM
Interesting synopsis, but inaccurate. It makes no statements about minimums for a fighting rifle.

He did not say that the "Chart" makes statements about minimums for a fighting rifle, rather he said some people consider those features to be minimums for a fighting rifle.

Double Naught Spy
August 20, 2010, 05:26 PM
He did not say that the "Chart" makes statements about minimums for a fighting rifle, rather he said some people consider those features to be minimums for a fighting rifle.

I never said he did. The inaccurate part is applying it across the board for a brand such as RRA, which it is not about. I should have included that with the OP as well. My bad. The chart only pertains to M4 pattern guns and no other varieties. So unless you are talking ONLY about M4 pattern guns, "The Chart" should not even be part of the discussion.

For example, The Chart lists RRA, but says nothing about any other models such as their Varmit or Coyote models which have different features than their M4 pattern gun.

rjrivero
August 20, 2010, 06:49 PM
I personally don't like how the safety feels. It sticks out a little bit more than I like (on the kit's that I've used in the past). I prefer the "cheaper" safety under my thumb, but other than that, I have NOTHING bad to say about Rock River.

I have one of their uppers on my 9mm build and it runs fine. (After the break in, that is.)

B. Lahey
August 20, 2010, 07:14 PM
Mine was terribly unreliable even after two service returns, and small parts in the lower broke on a regular basis.

I bought a Colt. The Colt works. Somewhere north of 8,000 rounds without a malfunction at the moment.

Tim R
August 20, 2010, 07:48 PM
B Lahey Wrote: Mine was terribly unreliable even after two service returns, and small parts in the lower broke on a regular basis.

Could you fill me in on which small parts?

Both of my RRA lowers have never seen the inside of a service shop. I did have a White Oak Precision tuned RRA 2 stage trigger quit on me once but it was not RRA's fault.

HorseSoldier
August 20, 2010, 09:04 PM
I've been running a Rock River lower with my LMT upper and haven't had any real drama with it through a whole bunch of range time, three or four civilian shooting schools, and patrol carbine training as an LEO. Can't speak for the rest of the weapon components they make, but I'd happily buy another RRA lower if I were putting together another rifle any time soon.

madcratebuilder
August 21, 2010, 06:52 AM
Quote:
Why the hate? Brand snobs. I'll bet that 75% of the trash talkers have never handled the fire arm they are trashing. It's an internet farce.

This is usually the argument that people who own Olympic Arms junk use.

Another internet farce. Several years ago Oly made a line of inexpensive (cheap) AR's, they had problems with these. The product they produce today are as reliable as most the other manufacturers.

Every manufacturer has a service shop, even Noveske.:D

Hoskins
August 21, 2010, 06:58 AM
Well let's see some facts:

RRA beat out major competion to become the DEA's choice rifle. It wasn't simply just a better salesman that got the deal, the DEA did thier own torture tests & RRA was the winner.

The Larson brothers that own & operate the company worked for Springfield Armory for 10 years & Mark Larson was the head armorer during that time.

Also, the brothers went into partnership with Les Baer to form Les Baaer Custom in which they built custom 1911's.

I'd say that is pretty decent credentials...plus the positive rep from RRA owners is probably the best credential of them all.

Wildalaska
August 21, 2010, 10:09 AM
RRA beat out major competion to become the DEA's choice rifle.It wasn't simply just a better salesman that got the deal, the DEA did thier own torture tests & RRA was the winner.

LOL....:rolleyes:


WildyeahmoneyhasnothingtodowithitAlaska ™©2002-10

Drummer101
August 21, 2010, 11:00 AM
Correct me if I am wrong,

I read somewhere that the RRA upper and lowers where in such close spec. that some had difficulties when switching out with other manufacturers.

comn-cents
August 21, 2010, 11:09 AM
Love my two never had a problem with them. I guess I just don't care what others think, I'll buy another or two.

Rampant_Colt
August 21, 2010, 11:17 AM
RRA is a top-notch AR

When I post anything about RRA, folks trash them
What website?

Blackops_2
August 21, 2010, 12:52 PM
RRA is one of THE better manufactures out there in big name companies such as dpms, bushmaster, etc. I would buy an RRA over all those if they were my choices. Yes i've handled a RRA entry tactical carbine and shot one have had no problems with it i just found it rather heavy for an AR. I've never said anything bad about RRA, i've just said that i prefer BCM, due to the fact it's great mil spec parts at great prices. Depending on what your preference is Mil spec or commercial is what it comes down to. I don't know if RRA is completely mil spec, not to take anything away from them they are great ARs but im a mil spec guy, and want is close as i can get to the army specs. Depends on what your preference is really. I haven't seen many bad comments on here about RRA.

Hoskins
August 21, 2010, 12:58 PM
WildAlaska...I know that there was salesmen, marketing, etc... going on by the RRA guys when dealing w/ trying to get the DEA contract...but the same was going on with all others competing for the contract.

I don't personally know this...but I was a recruiter & know a little bit about sales. Fact of the matter is, RRA won the contract & the DEA must have found some good merit in the RRA brand.

rodwhaincamo
August 21, 2010, 01:21 PM
Oops

NWCP
August 21, 2010, 04:17 PM
My RRA has been reliable and accurate. I also own a Stag Arms and have had no issues with it either. No figuring why folks choose to trash one brand over another. I'm sure there re some ARs out there not worth owning, I just don't happen to have one.

TPAW
August 21, 2010, 07:27 PM
Why is RRA (AR 15) so bad?

Beats me. They are one of the best. Wish I had one.

Blackops_2
August 21, 2010, 07:33 PM
I honestly think it depends on the community looking at the AR, depending on your application. Like i said i'm a 100% mil spec guy so at the moment i have no use for one. They are great ARs thats a fact whoever disagrees just refuses to believe the facts or they made their judgement on one bad apple they might have had with company.

chaser_2332
August 22, 2010, 09:41 AM
i have a NM and a carbine both have ran great and accurate, that being said ar's are modular guns most any of them will run great as long as you have quality parts most any AR is goin to shoot better than the person pulling the trigger.

Wildalaska
August 22, 2010, 10:01 AM
act of the matter is, RRA won the contract & the DEA must have found some good merit in the RRA brand.

Yeah. They were cheaper.


WildcheepcheepAlaska ™©2002-2010

Goldy
August 22, 2010, 10:39 AM
Wow! I'm glad RRA has so much support. On my suggestion my buddy bought a RRA upper to replace an inaccurate Colt H-Bar upper. He brought it out to sight in and shot ten shots into just over 3/4".

I'm Glad I didn't steer him wrong.

Hoskins
August 22, 2010, 04:46 PM
Yeah. They were cheaper.

To each is own...I'll stick with my RRA M4 & you can stick w/ your opinions & whatever you own. Regardless...seems as if there is much more positive comments about the RRA on this thread than negative.

superchi
August 22, 2010, 05:30 PM
Had one before, worked fine and was very average overall. Weighed more bare than a friend's 6920 with DD Omega rail. I sold it and now have an LMT and will never look back.

In my opinion, there are a lot of new offerings in the same price range for rifles that are finished much better like BCM, Spike's, and Daniel Defense.

Blackops_2
August 22, 2010, 06:13 PM
BCM-best AR parts for the money.

Wildalaska
August 22, 2010, 08:56 PM
To each is own...I'll stick with my RRA M4 & you can stick w/ your opinions & whatever you own. Regardless...seems as if there is much more positive comments about the RRA on this thread than negative.

Geez dont get all emotionally charged up simply 'cuz someone thinks your gun is not the 2nd coming of the Lord Himself.

RRs arent bad, they just arent as good. Good quality entry level AR for those who dont want the best.


WildIseethegunwoobiehasbeenstirredAlaska ™©2002-2010

CPTMurdoc30
August 22, 2010, 09:11 PM
RRA are Junk CRAP I guess someone should have told me that before I went and spend $930 for mine.

I don't think it is junk. as for the price $930 for an AR that shoots like this. Oh and these were all shot off the top of my range bag because I forgot my other range bag full of sand bags.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l134/cpttango30/AR-15/AR-15group.png

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l134/cpttango30/Guns/AR-15group.png

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l134/cpttango30/Guns/AR-15group1.png


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l134/cpttango30/AR-15/IMG_1468.jpg

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l134/cpttango30/Guns/ar-15group2.png

ritepath
August 22, 2010, 09:21 PM
I'll stick with my Stags, and spend the money saved for a good SD pistol that will be on my person 99.999% of the time. I really doubt I'll ever get attacked while at the range or out in the field, if my AR's will provide 5 rounds without jamming they've done their job.

Hoskins
August 23, 2010, 02:44 AM
Not emotionally charged dude, just a healthy debate. I'm not saying that the/my RRA M4 is better than anyone else's...just saying that it isn't junk and/or trash...that's all.

That's why I said "to each his own," hey, that's why there is so many AR makers out there...not everyone likes the exact same gun.;)

thinkingman
August 23, 2010, 02:50 PM
The truth is RRA produces excellent firearms. Not uncommon to see RRA represented on the line at CMP competitions...more than other brands.

You do see a lot of gunshop wannabe experts who want to sound sophisticated and knowledgeable put them down....'the chart' is more for bragging rights than functional benefits.
Nothing generates more misinformed brand loyalty on these threads than AR manufacturers and optics manufacturers.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 23, 2010, 03:22 PM
RRA makes good rifles; but a lot depends on their use also. For example, many of the people here are fond of their acccuracy - and they are typically very accurate. However, two side effects of that dedication to accuracy are:

1. Very tight chambers
2. Heavy profile barrels that are going to weigh 5-6oz more than an M4 or Government profile.

For most of us, neither of those two things are a big issue. For guys who do a lot of training, both can be a negative. The heavier barrel makes for a longer day on the firing line and the tight chamber can contribute to bad extraction when the rifle gets really hot.

If you are coming from the "I am going to burn up 2,000 rounds over the next three days shooting in a variety of awkward positions at targets 50 yards and closer", then RRA is probably not at the top of your list - although there will still be a good number of individual RRA rifles that will do well at that too.

DanThaMan1776
August 23, 2010, 04:23 PM
I almost never read or hear about someone disliking RRA

Technosavant
August 23, 2010, 04:43 PM
'the chart' is more for bragging rights than functional benefits.

Depends.

It continually surprises me how many people can't get this through their heads- "The Chart" is a listing of features, nothing more, nothing less. Those features may matter to some buyers and may not to others. You may get a M4 pattern rifle that does not conform to the chart and never notice the difference. Others might.

It does NOT mean the chart is the end all be all. It does NOT mean that the chart is meaningless and lists features that nobody has any use for or will ever use or need.

Again, back to the topic- I've yet to hear or see RRA hate. I've seen Bushmaster hate. I've seen Hesse/Vulcan/Blackthorne hate (and for good reason). I've seen Olympic hate. I've even seen Colt hate. RRA inhabits a portion of the market where their rifles cost more than some and less than others, but you get a mix of features that seems to be what many people like, need, and want out of their AR-15s. Overall quality seems to be good and accuracy and reliability are just fine (if not above average). Chart or no chart, Rock River makes a decent rifle, as do many others.

.300 Weatherby Mag
August 23, 2010, 05:02 PM
I don't own one personally but I've never heard anyone bashing a RRA..

dgludwig
August 25, 2010, 12:16 PM
RRA makes a great, affordable, 2-stage NM trigger. And, as thinkingman noted, you'll see as many or more RRA rifles @ the world's most demanding proving ground for accuracy and reliability when target shooting: Camp Perry.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 25, 2010, 12:26 PM
And, as thinkingman noted, you'll see as many or more RRA rifles @ the world's most demanding proving ground for accuracy and reliability when target shooting: Camp Perry.

A demanding proving ground for accuracy to be sure. I'm not so sure about a demanding proving ground for reliability though. I don't think a competition where rapid fire is a string of 10 shots in 60 seconds is going to give any AR much of a reliability test.

thinkingman
August 25, 2010, 02:59 PM
Quote:
And, as thinkingman noted, you'll see as many or more RRA rifles @ the world's most demanding proving ground for accuracy and reliability when target shooting: Camp Perry.

A demanding proving ground for accuracy to be sure. I'm not so sure about a demanding proving ground for reliability though. I don't think a competition where rapid fire is a string of 10 shots in 60 seconds is going to give any AR much of a reliability test.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest those at Camp Perry know a thing or two about reliability....and demand precision shooting along with reliability.
Do you really think those shooters would use a rifle they didn't have 100% confidence in?

Ky Bob
August 25, 2010, 03:03 PM
+1 for BCM.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 25, 2010, 04:07 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest those at Camp Perry know a thing or two about reliability....and demand precision shooting along with reliability.
Do you really think those shooters would use a rifle they didn't have 100% confidence in?

100% confidence to be reliable enough able to complete a High Power Match? That's like being fast enough to outrun a tortoise. The National Match course is a total of 50 rounds. The fastest you'll fire is 10 shots in 60 seconds and in slow-fire you'll have up to a minute per round fired.

In addition, you'll get an alibi string for a disabled rifle in rapid fire or an additional minute per round remaining in slow fire. So it isn't like the National Match sets up a very demanding standard of reliability.

Compare that to say, the 2004 ITRC 3-Gun Competition (http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16277) which had a single stage that required a MINIMUM round count of 568 rifle rounds and 532 pistol rounds in 45 minutes. Many rifles that would finish Camp Perry with no problems at all are going to choke and die at ITRC.

dgludwig
August 25, 2010, 06:02 PM
In addition, you'll get an alibi string for a disabled rifle in rapid fire or an additional minute per round remaining in slow fire.

I shoot at Camp Perry. You don't get to claim an alibi forever. Shooters who win at Camp Perry don't win with unreliable rifles.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that Camp Perry is a "torture test" venue and it is decidedly not a testing stage for rifles that are subjected to "combat" environs. But RRA rifles are used by serious shooters who compete to win-and winning at Camp Perry requires a very reliable, very accurate rifle.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 25, 2010, 07:39 PM
But RRA rifles are used by serious shooters who compete to win-and winning at Camp Perry requires a very reliable, very accurate rifle.

Maybe I'm just clueless about Camp Perry; but 50 rounds downrange in a little over 30 minutes with no problems doesn't strike me as a particularly stringent standard for reliability. To my thinking, a rifle that meets that standard MIGHT be very reliable; but that particular test of its reliability wouldn't tell us much.

What is it about Camp Perry that makes you feel that any rifle that competes there must be very reliable? What are the specific facts leading you to your conclusion?

stikjock
August 25, 2010, 08:31 PM
Okay, I'm new here - I'll admit it.

My question is this: the OP asks "why are RRA so bad?"

Firstly, I'm assuming that's Rock River Arms. The Air Force Special Operations rifle team uses RRA rifles for their competition guns. They run great, and they run accurate. True - carefully loaded ammo improves that accuracy.

Secondly, I have to ask this: who says RRA is bad? Do you have examples or articles that make the claim, or is this a "I read this on another board" type of issue?

thinkingman
August 26, 2010, 12:01 PM
StikJok,
It's not that anyone claimed RRA is bad, it's that there are the few regular posters on this and other forums, that have access to a spreadsheet someone made, that lists various AR15 factory characteristics that some find very important and others find to be excessive for most users.
There is also gunshopwoobie that thinks if you don't agree with his contention that Colt, Remington and Leupold are the end-all be-all, you're just a misinformed noob that needs enlightenment.
Strong opinions, very passionate. Sometimes informed, more often not.

Blackops_2
August 26, 2010, 12:58 PM
It's not that anyone claimed RRA is bad, it's that there are the few regular posters on this and other forums, that have access to a spreadsheet someone made, that lists various AR15 factory characteristics that some find very important and others find to be excessive for most users.
There is also gunshopwoobie that thinks if you don't agree with his contention that Colt, Remington and Leupold are the end-all be-all, you're just a misinformed noob that needs enlightenment.
Strong opinions, very passionate. Sometimes informed, more often not.

Couldn't have said it better myself.:D

RockyMtnTactical
August 26, 2010, 01:03 PM
They are great target rifles.

Most of the people who talk badly about RRA do so based on the fact that RRA does not meet Milspec requirements for quality in a combat rifle in some regards.

dgludwig
August 26, 2010, 07:27 PM
What is it about Camp Perry that makes you feel that any rifle that competes there must be very reliable? What are the specific facts leading you to your conclusion?

It's really pretty simple: If your rifle is malfunctioning, you will not score well. If you don't score well, you won't be competitive with shooters whose rifles aren't requiring alibi reshoots (which are limited in terms of the number of times you can shoot again). If you've ever shot on the line at Camp Perry against truly accomplished shooters, you would understand that your scores are adversely compromised when a "reshoot" is needed because your rifle malfunctioned. Winning competitors use rifles that are accurate, reliable and have good trigger pulls. In these respects, Bullseye (Service Rifle) matches are no different than any other competitive shooting endeavors. And RRA National Match rifles are prominent on the line at Camp Perry because they meet those minimum standards.

If your time and proximity to Camp Perry make a trip feasible, I would encourage you make a visit to these "proving grounds" next year and see for yourself how the demands of shooting competitively require a reliable, accurate rifle. You will not be in serious contention without one.

LockedBreech
August 26, 2010, 08:40 PM
The police at my university as well as the police in the town my university is in both use Rock River. I know several members of of the UPD (as a pre-law Criminal Justice senior, a good chunk are former classmates), and I was chatting with a few of them about how why they selected RRA. Apparently, their chief (whom I took a class with, an experienced 30-year LEO with 20 of those years being in Kansas City, as well as an Army vet) decided to test RRA, Smith and Wesson's M&P, Bushmaster, and DPMS for the department's needs. Since it's a small department, all patrol officers got some range time with contenders from each of these four brands, and the entire department loved the RRA, especially given the price tag comparison. They had nothing but positive things to say about the fit and finish or the reliability.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 26, 2010, 09:05 PM
As I stated before, I don't think a 50rd match is much of a reliable test. Heat is a big killer on rifles and 50rds of .223 in 30 minutes doesn't generate much stress or heat - even if you shoot two or three a day.

ITRC, Mystery Mountain - those are events that will stress a rifle and test its reliability? Camp Perry? Not so much.

Quentin2
August 27, 2010, 01:14 AM
The M4 chart is a useful tool and it's wise to take the time to understand it. One quick way is to look only at the BCG which is probably the most important area of the chart and of course your AR. Looking at the six manufacturers at the right of the chart, most of them can't hit a single military specification out of six in the BCG. RRA actually is the only one to get a point but still they strike out in the other five areas. This is important stuff too - pressure testing, MPI testing, shot peened bolt, properly staked carrier key, proper extractor spring/extractor, M16 carrier or at least a shrouded firing pin.

If buying a BCG why pay about the same money for a CMMG, Stag, Bushmaster, Oly or DPMS that gets 0 out of 6 or RRA that gets 1 out of 6 when a BCM or DD for $135 gives you 6 out of 6 in this crucial assembly.

Looking at those that do poorly in the BCG, now extend out to other areas and they also do poorly when you look at all 21 specs. I'd say you're not getting your money's worth with the rifles on the right.

Not knocking RRA and if you have one and it works, that's great. But if buying a new AR I'd sure look farther to the left of the chart, at least to S&W which for the same money gives you 14 checkmarks vs. RRA's 5. For very little more BCM gives you 21 out of 21.

Again I'm not knocking any rifle but this is simple math any of us can do and it does matter for hard use.