MOTD (Meme of the Day)

128170758_1692227057603346_5794893503726156928_o.jpg
 
UTfball68 said:
View attachment 332322
Click to expand...
Anybody that has deployed has trusted rifles that are waaaaaayyyyyyyy less quality than any $500 rifle you can buy off the shelf.

Hell, I’d trust the first AR I built more than what I deployed with. Battle sight zero, 3 rounds, adjust, 3 rounds, hitting 8” steel at 50m. Followed by a mag dump and all hit the steel at 100m.
 
BrianGreen said:
Anybody that has deployed has trusted rifles that are waaaaaayyyyyyyy less quality than any $500 rifle you can buy off the shelf.

Hell, I’d trust the first AR I built more than what I deployed with. Battle sight zero, 3 rounds, adjust, 3 rounds, hitting 8” steel at 50m. Followed by a mag dump and all hit the steel at 100m.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking ignorantly here, because I was too chicken shit to join. However, I do find that hard to believe. Even before the panic, $500 would get you mim LPK's, polymer lowers (or poverty pony), crooked barrels and untested BCG's made from 9310. That gets you to $250-300 before you even touch the upper, hanguard, furniture, etc. I know plenty of civilian offerings are now calling themselves 'better than milspec'...and they are...but I am legitimately curious about parts that are 'trusted' for under $500. Parts used out of desperation sure, parts used that weren't adjusted for inflation ok...but I'd imagine there's some sort of milspec rule about defects per million and/or testing, that would rule out the vast majority of current day $500 rifles.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top