Thread: AR 15

Originally Posted by Towely

Yes. Because there is pretty much nothing between brand A to brand Z quality wise when it comes to AR's so cheaper is better.

Some are definitely way better than others....... but it seams Digit is on to some reasonable ones at a fantastic price...now what can i sell to buy one

Originally Posted by Towely

Yes. Because there is pretty much nothing between brand A to brand Z quality wise when it comes to AR's so cheaper is better.

OMG I was so trying not to answer this. Pretty much nothing is not nothing between Brand A to Z.Nothing is nothing ie: No metallic quality, size, fit, tolerance, material structures, chemical properties and on and on.
That theory is a is flawed and failed analysis and may apply to somehow a consummable date sensitive product but how it applies to a firearm eludes me..
Believe it if you must. Im setting up a meeting with Peter Pan to get his opinion so sorry Im too busy to go any further with this discussion...
PE CE MF

Wicked just the answer I was looking for originally full of truthful factual based scienticifc facts and no bull at all ..
Thanks hopefully the topic is done.

Originally Posted by leathel

Some are definitely way better than others....... but it seams Digit is on to some reasonable ones at a fantastic price...now what can i sell to buy one

Umm what would you get for an imaginery friend who knows Peter Pan... Ooops Im goin now

Originally Posted by Towely

Yes. Because there is pretty much nothing between brand A to brand Z quality wise when it comes to AR's so cheaper is better.

All that comment proves is that you have no real first hand experience with AR's and that you have never ever held or used a "good" one.

I go out of my way not to get ripped off but by the same token I am happy to pay a premium for quality.

Many people seem to misunderstand the quality argument when talking about AR's. The majority of lower end AR's are basically of near equal quality. Lots of the "tier 3" brands make perfectly functional rifles, with excellent barrels, fit and finish etc. Good sporting rifles that most shooters will be more than happy with. It is not uncommon for those rifles to be made of the same parts and re-branded. What dirty's the water in the quality comparison, is the fact that, in the USA, a lot of AR's are bought for self defense, security, law enforcement, tactical carbine classes, even for use over seas by PMC's. This is where you get into the "tier 1" AR's, basically deployment quality rifles. Brands such as Spikes Tactical, Bravo Company, Colt, Lewis Machine and Tool, Knight's Armament, maybe even CMMG, among others. The above manufactures attempt to build their rifles to at least the lowest quality standard set out for a rifle to be accepted into service in the US military. Most of the lower end brands, do not meet this criteria, some of them not even close. This is why you see a lot of bad mouthing on the net about brands like DPMS and Bushmaster - people who need or just want deployment quality gear tend to consider them as junk.

What relevance does this have for your average NZ hunter or shooter? Probably not a hell of a lot. If given the choice, at a decent price, I would pick a "tier 1" rifle over a lower end brand any day of the week, just cuz I am a whore for the mil spec kool aid. I reckon most of the members on this board would be quite happy shooting what ever. It needs to be remembered that some of the close to military spec guns are hard to get out of the States at times, and hanging out for one over say an NEA or RRA will not really bring you much joy.

To say that "all AR's are the same" is simply spreading misinformation. Some are quite literally made out of better stuff and have better QC. I think it would be more reasonable to say - "you won't notice much, if at all functional difference between the AR brand's, within reason". I've handled and shot quite a few at varying price points, they all work the same for the kind of shooting I do.

My advice would be to find one that is as close as possible to how you want it set up from the factory, at a price you can swing, and buy it. Then shoot the crap out of it.

my only point is that now we have somewhat of a price parity as to what you pay here for the same item as in the US

As to quality and features, that's different - same as bolt action rifles

Yeah it's like saying "well I don't want a Sako, a Mossberg is the same thing"

I cant afford a Sako, but the Mossberg is also a bolt action and in 7mm08 it will match my latte.

Originally Posted by Digit

We have a different motive to all other retailers. We want to protect the rights of AR owners. We feel the best way we can do that is to flood the market with affordable AR's. The more AR's in NZ the harder it is for authorities to remove them or prevent ownership. By flooding the market with affordable AR's we have forced every retailer to drop their prices and again obtain our goal. We have also had the side effect of making retailers feel like they are missing out on an opportunity and force them to jump on the AR bandwagon - again achieving our goal. You can potentially thank affordable AR's for the future of your expensive investment.

A quality AR market will come later with bedding down of the MSSA laws. Most of the quality foreign guns built are in an E-Cat format. No point destroying handins at the moment to obtain an E when you can buy a reasonable A.
We have offered quality E's and there is zero interest. There is no market for E's until the politicians decide what you are allowed to do.

There are other issues around export, brand protection and NZ A cat configuration that I could dwell on that also control what you will see here in NZ. In the meantime be thankful for what is happening.

I would call that reckless, even misleading, importing them knowing full well there is a 95% chance are about to be turned E-cat. I imagine there are going to be a few people having to sell their AR at a loss because they cannot get an E endorsement.

I personally think you have just done what any other business would have and taken advantage of a temporary loophole in the legislation.

An extra 1-2000 ARs in the country will do nothing to sway parliament, as it stands they are hugely in favour of the amendment.

I love what you have done to the prices though and you will probably cause a few more people to get endorsed which I see as a good thing.

Originally Posted by Savage1

I would call that reckless, even misleading, importing them knowing full well there is a 95% chance are about to be turned E-cat. I imagine there are going to be a few people having to sell their AR at a loss because they cannot get an E endorsement.

Every gun we have imported has been approved by NZ Police as suitable for A-cat licence holders. The only reckless misleading action would be if the police now turn around and change there minds on what they have authorised us and every other importer to do..

[QUOTE=Digit;62472]Every gun we have imported has been approved by NZ Police as suitable for A-cat licence holders. The only reckless misleading action would be if the police now turn around and change there minds on what they have authorised us and every other importer to do..

Realistically, how likely is that?

Basically the Police know that a stupid knee jerk law change will see a lot of AR15's dissappear off the scene. They know that the best option will be to maintain a database of all AR's and the best option to achieve that is free migration from A to E cat.

Also this is only if the ammendment actually becomes law. It hasnt reached that stage yet.

What has happened is there are far more firearms in the country now that would have been effected by the law change, when it was first proposed. If it ends in a cluster fuck with heaps more off the books E cats then it is their fault. They could have chosen a simple option that would save a lot of money on both sides, and a lot of fucking around adjusting regulations over the coming years, but they chose the hard road so they can walk it as far as I'm concerned. I think it is pretty clear - Kiwi shooters want modern semi auto rifles, police HQ don't want us having them, so this is bound to cause conflict to some degree.

Yeah , but isn't it "their" (The Police) "stupid knee jerk" law change? It's what they are gunning for isn't it? Like all Govt departments, the Police aren't required to make a profit, so they won't care how difficult or costly it is to comply, they simply won't care if the "hard road" is chosen. It will be up to the shooters of NZ to comply.

Originally Posted by Bulltahr

Yeah , but isn't it "their" (The Police) "stupid knee jerk" law change? It's what they are gunning for isn't it? Like all Govt departments, the Police aren't required to make a profit, so they won't care how difficult or costly it is to comply, they simply won't care if the "hard road" is chosen. It will be up to the shooters of NZ to comply.

Basically. It was pretty obvious to those who presented submissions to the select committee that the police already had the MP's in their pocket. Nothing constructive came out of it.