Hey all, I am so glad this site is here...an awful lot of information. I never had any intention of getting one, but with everything going on, I figured now was just as good a time as any. I know that I could build one and I KNOW there are many others out there, but I can get both the Ruger AR556 and the M&P Sport II for $620 from my LGS (and will get one or the other tomorrow). I am looking for a utility gun of decent quality, not a build quality...at the moment. That may come later. There is so much info online and it gets a little confusing and vague. I figured I may end the search here. OF THE TWO I have mentioned, which one and why? One better than the other? The Smith appeals as it has a lifetime warranty, the Ruger appeals as I reload and can get better use out of heavier bullets--so I understand. But what are some other views? Thanks in advance.

The Ruger has a hammer forged barrel, S&W is 4140 steel.  In my book, that's a point for the Ruger.  But the S&W has the lifetime warranty, which is a big point for them.  The Ruger does have some proprietary parts to it.  I'm not sure about the S&W.  I would give a point to whichever one had the least proprietary bits on it.  Mil-Spec parts mean less headaches if you want to accessorize and customize it.

ETA -
MPI bolt is also an important feature.  Ruger's specs list ''Bolt is machined from 9310 alloy steel and is shot peened and pressure (proof) tested to ensure strength, structural integrity and durability."  I'm not sure exactly what that means, but S&W doesn't list anything about their bolt, which usually means it is not HPT/MPI.

Some good
Ruger- hammer forged. 1:8 twist barrel. Chromed bolt.
Some bad--i've heard
Barrel not chromed/coated. Barrel nut and front sight are custom

Some good
S&W--supposedly more mil-spec (although ruger states theirs is). Coated barrel. Warranty.
Some bad--barrel not chromed. Unsure about the bolt.

I have seen/heard of issues with both. One person started quoting hickok45 about rugers trigger not being as good when comparing the two. They failed to mention that he also said that if he had to pick, he would go with the ruger. Not that he is the end-all, but certainly a good resource.

Between the two I am down with the Ruger.

In for the M&P. Imo, you will not regret it.

So thats 1:1. But here's a question about the S&W warranty...once I start swapping out parts, does that void the warranty?

Six one way half dozen the other. As a starter, either will be fine as a learning tool and stepping stone.

Depends.  If you get yourself a proper HPT/MPI bolt carrier group ($90 at PSA) and drop in the gun, you can always take it out and put the original back in if you have to send the gun in for repairs.  If you swapped out the barrel, its a lot harder to put the original back on before you send it in.  I'm not sure about their warranty, but I don't think they'd mind if you swapped out the grips and stock.  They probably start thinking about voiding the warranty when you start making modifications that require hammers and punches and saws.

Either would be fine OP

Either would be fine, however, I'm not sure why you narrowed it down to only those two. I know its not on your short list for whatever reason, but Windham Weaponry has some very good entry level stuff. I just used one of their barrels for a build and am quite pleased with it.

Drop an extra 250 and get a Colt.

OR what this guy said... used to own a Windham... good rifle.

I have an m&p OR and an AR556, among others. I'll tell u I'm a Ruger guy thru and thru and I like the Ruger. But if I had to choose, I'd take the M&p. Fit and finish is somewhat better in my opinion. But as others have said... They will both suit your needs so honesty if I were you, I'd handle them both and pick one for yourself ,,  like I said. I've fired hundreds of rounds thru both (over 1k thru the m&p) they both function and shoot fine

Why pick between these two? Why not spend an extra $250? Why not something else? You ask, I tell, but I will provide the more abridged version.

I don't make much money. I work in a retail environment...although I get paid well for retail. My wife is a stay-at-home mom with two elementary school age kids with special needs kids-- autism. In June, my wife found out she had cancer. She is currently undergoing treatments. So, not to get all sobby on everyone, but that's why. In order to buy a gun, I need to first sell a gun...in this case, a few mil surps. In the end, I will have $800 to spend, not a penny more. If I buy a more expensive one, i will not have the money to spends on ammo and extra mags. And as most probably believe, if Billary gets into orifice,  you know what's gonna happen to everything. It will all disappear off the shelves and prices will skyrocket.  I would be stuck with a nicer weapon and not have anything to do with it. I suppose it would make a good tomato stake. So...those are my reasons.

S&W Sport barrel is "only" 4140, but is nitride surface hardned inside and out, that not only offsets not being 4150, but provides superior corrosion resistence and barrel life comparable to mil spec chrome lined 4150.

Ruger's barrel is neither chrome lined nor nitrided.  Ruger does have several proprietary, non mil spec parts.  The Sport 2 is fully interchangeable.

Personally, of the two, I would opt for the S&W. The Ruger has some proprietary parts that would inhibit modifications should you plan on making any. The S&W is perfectly capable of handling most any ammo up to 72 gr. with very good results. That said, it is your money and your decision. Ruger makes a good product, but my money would be on the S&W.

If those are your options, then go with the S&W.

Personally, I think the real key is having a good understanding of a) exactly what you are buying and b) what are you really going to use it for.  

For me, unless it's a true target rifle, I want the barrel to be either chrome lined or melonite.  Stainless is OK if it's "good stainless".  I'm not a metallurgist but I think 416R is the way to go.  Twist can be 7, 8, or 9 for 99.99% of everything you will ever shoot.  Next, the bolt needs to be high quality.  I'm OK with either C158 or 9310 as long as it's been tested properly.  I will admit I'm not a fan of proprietary parts.  I don't believe MIL-SPEC is the be-all and end-all for quality, but it does help with interchangeability.  Upper and lower forgings from reputable companies seem to be 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.  A good trigger is a must.  After those things, most options relate to configuration and personal preference.  Things like gas blocks, hand guards, and stocks are all easy enough to change with patience and some decent tools.

Probably my favorite way to buy AR's is to find a complete upper I like and a complete lower, then snap them together.  You don't have to get them from the same place or even at the same time.  Places like Palmetto State, AIM, PK Firearms, and Spike's are great places to start looking for affordable options.  Next level would be Daniel Defense, BCM, and Rainier.

Take your time and have fun.  There is NOT one answer to your question.

S&W, with that warranty, its hard to beat

Thanks so much for all of the info. One question..what determines quality? I know I will likely spend more buying now and upgrading later, vs saving more now and building later. Out of the two I am trying to decide between, I understand that the furniture is of lower quality and the barrels leave much to be desired. Are the lower receivers good quality? If they are, then they should last and I can add a quality barrel, trigger, and or bolt and have a good quality firearm, correct? It's not like I am buying a hipoint and wanting to "upgrade" and essentially  adding a cherry to a turd, right? I am just "thinking out loud" here. That's just my thought process. Does that make sense? The ruger and m&p seem like a good start to me, given the price point and my current limitations; something I can build on later as the opportunity presents itself.

Just built 5 M4s for $450 each. Better build than my buddies M&P.

In the land of Legos, build your own. That way you get what you want, not what someone else decided you should have.

How the hell did you do it that cheap and what are your specs?

The receivers are good quality. You need not worry about them. The barrel on the S&W is good quality and should last a long time. Of course, the duration of any parts is subject to material they are made of, use, and maintenance. Ammo can be a factor as well. Steel-cased ammo can cause some premature wear on a barrel and bolt (mainly the extractor).

In the gun world, some of the big ones are what the parts are made of and how much attention to detail there is.  Both Ruger and S&W are pretty big names in the business so you shouldn't have to worry too much about them cutting corners by using shitty pot metal.  You are, however, looking at their entry level rifles.  You can expect them to use good materials, but not the best they have to offer.  That's why you see 4140 steel on the S&W barrel and no chrome lining on the Ruger one.  They may skip some additional quality checks to save costs such as MPI on the barrel and bolt.  In some cases, sights and gas blocks may even be canted to one side a bit on the cheaper guns.

Both rifles should have quality receivers that will last a lifetime.  As long as they're both mil-spec, you can take your pick of all the different triggers and plop in with $5 worth of tools.  As far as swapping barrels, the Ruger does say it uses a proprietary barrel nut.  You'd have to research deeper to make sure an aftemarket barrel would mount up.

Post pics and list of parts you used.

OP - First off, prayers are out for you and your family.  Stay strong and believe!  Your reason for not spending more on the Colt is spot on.  That extra $250 will buy Mags and Ammo which you will surely need.

Second, my Broth in Law bought a Ruger and I've shot and handled it a bit.  I don't have any experience with S&W M&P Sports, but I've read a lot and have seen all the reviews.  I started with a Mossberg MMR 5.56 because it was the lowest price rifle in the configuration that I wanted that I could find.  Then I proceeded to build 4 more AR15's.  You are going about this process the right way.  Buy a manufacturer's gun, with warranty, learn the platform, learn what you like and don't like, make informed decisions.

With all the research I have done, I would probably choose the Sport II.  Barrel has a Melonite treatment, More Mil-Spec parts such as the funky handguard ring on the Ruger, Better warranty, etc...

I wouldn't be in hurry to "customize" the rifle you purchase.  Shoot it a lot, keep reading here, learn the platform.  This will eventually lead to more rifles down the road.  Keep what you have and be proud of it.  Either rifle with serve you well.  

Aero Precision AC-15 for $599 beats the Sport and Ruger
Or assemble a PSA

I wouldn't worry about barrel life too much.  It takes a while to wear out a barrel unless you are into heating up the barrel performing mag dumps.  Replacement barrels are inexpensive and easy to replace.

Very true.  The Aero Precision AC-15 beats the Ruger & S&W all day long.  4150 CMV, 1:7 twist, 158 Bolt, Gen 2 Lower,

$589 at http://www.primaryarms.com/aero-precision-ac-15-complete-rifle-apcr100015

Only problem, does not ship with a magazine nor a rear sight.  $9.95 for the mag, $50 for the Gen 2 flip up rear sight, $12 S/H, FFL fee of ??  $25  ??  =  $686  approx.

Still worth considering?  $66 more than your first two choices would buy 5 Pmags and a couple boxes of ammo!  But that Aero looks like a pretty sweet rifle.....  

WAIT A MINUTE!  Primary Arms is selling a "complete rifle;  rifle is ready to operate straight out of the box."  SHIPS WITH A PMAG!  Shows a picture of a Magpul Rear Sight.  Does it include that?   Now you're back at $589 + $12 S/H +  FFL Fee ?? $25 ??  =  approx $626  !!!!  

Aero Precision from Primary Arms for the win!

You might want to look at COLTS  budget gun the expanse 2000

Every Ruger Ive bought that had a problem, Ruger fixed it and paid shipping both ways.  I thought that was standard for all Ruger firearms?

Beats them, either of them, on warranty and customer service responsiveness?  Board experience suggest otherwise for AP and PSA, especially compared to S&W.

The Ruger or the Smith would suit your needs just fine. They're both in the same boat. The Ruger barrel nut and Delta ring can be swapped for a milspec version and the front gas block is fine unless you wanna free float the barrel. You'd have to chop it or go with a low profile clamp on type as the stock one is pinned on top instead of on the bottom. I have the Ruger, it got me back into the platform and I'd recommend it to anyone, as well as the Smith.

The Aero is the closest copy of the venerable Colt 6920 for the price. The Sport and Ruger are too "commercial" and basic for the price, IMO.

In your $600 price range, you can acquire Midlength rifles from Brownells (whose CS is unbeatable).

http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/receiver-parts/receivers/lower-receivers/ac-15-5-56mm-16-mid-length-rifle-prod82606.aspx
or
($559 if you qualify for discount program)
http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/receiver-parts/receivers/lower-receivers/oem-mid-length-16-rifle-prod81838.aspx?avs%7cManufacturer_1=AERO+PRECISION

Nelsd99, thanks for your thoughtful response...and eveyone else for that matter. I was just looking at some of the PSA "Rifle Kits" for less than $500. Do those contain everything but the lower receiver? And would those be of better quality? Take a look and tell me what you all think.

I have a assembled many PSA kits for budget minded friends.  
You can too with simple tools and instructional videos on youtube.

Buy a stripped lower locally and a kit like this one:
$499
http://palmettostatearmory.com/blemished-16-hammer-forged-mid-length-rifle-kit.html
+
cheap trigger upgrade $30
http://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-ar15-pa10-enhanced-polished-trigger.html

The rifle on the left I put together for $450 shipped.The rifle on the right has a FN chrome lined barrel and I put it together for $650-700, minus the ACOG and suppressor of course. You could save even more if you didn't want the KAC rails or Sopmod stock.

For the money, I'd prefer either compared to your choices. PSA also has a lifetime warranty. You save money, and you can select an upper and lower that you prefer.

Yes they do, buy you can also get a complete lower and upper and just add a BCG & CH.

Right now they have a complete lower for $160.
16" CHF upper for $360
BCG & CH for $85 (or you can get a premium BCG for $90 + $20 CH)
Total: $605-$630 (You pay shipping and transfer but don't pay tax.)

This would be a better rifle than the Ruger or S&W, in my opinion. You get a CHF FN 1/7 CL barrel, HPT/MPI BCG, mil spec LPK, receivers, buffer tube, etc, for less money. Add a matech for $50, then you can add an optic in the future.

This.  The Ruger and S&W are junk.  Get the Aero Precision for the same price.  It is measurably better.

PSA has many BLEM kits right now for $399.  if you get free ship thats $433 with tax, plus a lower.

I would encourage taking a look that way.

Smith all day

I have to ask, how does the quality differ? People keep saying ruger and S&W are trash or "no good," but why? What makes the parts so different? They have to be of some quality as if it were junk, they wouldn't cover warranties and schtuff, would they?

I would do that or a lower locally and a upper from PSA. Even a stripped lower with a CMMG parts kit is easy. My 8 year old son has helped/installed parts kits on several.

There are links to YouTube step by step video on assembling lowers here as well. Really easy, wish I would have learned 15 years ago and saved the cash.

I don't think the S&W or Ruger are trash.  But your first post said you were dead set on one of those 2 guns.  Now that you're looking at others, I agree that the Aero Precision and PSA are better options.  You get more features for equal or less money.  

Aero Precision - MPI bolt, 1:7 twist, mid length gas, lifetime warranty, mil-spec
PSA kit - lots of different options.  you can end up with a CHF barrel, MPI bolt, mid length gas, lifetime warranty, mil-spec, and come out cheaper than the other 3 options already on the table.

There are different quality levels when it comes to ARs, some people have a lower limit on what they think is acceptable quality... The low end ARs are typically below that level for some. which is where the hate comes from.

Lower cost ARs typically cut corners to get to that low price. They do it in a few ways...

Materials that are below spec. Use of 6160 alloy rather than 7075 alloy for some small parts like the charging handle and buffer tube/receiver extension is common. Sometimes they use a cheaper easier to work steel for the bolt. Lower cost steel for the barrel (4140 vs 4150)

Sometimes they deviate from the spec in other ways... not chrome lining the barrel, not shot peening the bolt, and not HP/MPI inspecting bolts. Commercial buffer tubes are made with a cheaper and easier method than mil spec, which results in a tube that is a little larger in diameter, hence the importance when buying a stock. There are "mil spec diameter" tubes that retain proper dimensions, but use the cheaper 6061 alloy. The cheaper PSA stuff has these. Most users wouldn't be impacted by this though.

Overall build quality may be lower, as less time is allowed per individual rifle during assembly, so mistakes may get made and slip through. Less attention may be paid to part fitment, resulting in overly tight or sloppy fit. A good enough attitude as it were, for acceptable defects.

Nitride treating the barrel (there are several brand names to this process) is also a cost cutting step vs chrome lining... But when done right it is at least equal to chrome lining.

Cheaper ARs will typically come with low cost basic stocks and furniture.

Most owners will never put more than a few hundred rounds through their ARs in a year... This is more likely for those who by cheaper ARs... So the likelihood of someone wearing out or breaking their rifle is low, and warranty claims are not likely to be a huge problem for the manufacturer


As you increase price, you typically get closer to the mil spec, either exactly or a close approximation. You may see a lower cost nitride barrel for instance.

Around the $700-800 range, you can get at a minimum of mil spec if you buy right.

Increase price more, and overall quality and assurances of a properly made firearm increase. You may even exceed the mil spec minimum... Accuracy may be better than average as well. That is up to a point of about $1500 or so... Past that, and the amount of money sent vs tangible increase in quality increases quickly.

This all predicates on you buying smart. As you can always over pay... Some brands get there reputations for quality deservedly, some run with those reputations into very high prices.


As far as a low cost entry rifle, the Smith and Ruger work fine. I would lean Smith for the barrel. Both have good customer service.

PSA makes a good product, if you know what to look for... Customer service is slow, but generally helpful.

The build kit with the CHF barrel... I highly recommend, as that barrel is excellent. FN made and mine has proven accurate and reliable.

I COULDN'T DO IT!!!!! Couldn't pull the trigger. The one gun shop had them, but wouldn't give me $300 for trade on one of my other firearms. The other shop would give me the $300, but not only did they not have either, but their prices were $30-$60 more. I had money and was ready to go.

Well, it looks like I will be building one. From what I have heard, it looks like I will Aero Precision or PSA. Is one preferable over the other? Thanks so much everyone for all of your input! It is very much appreciated!

Get the PSA build kit with the mid length CHF barrel... For about $500, and then pick up a stripped lower locally or from PSA, Aero, or Anderson if you can not find the others.

Just looked at the Aero rifle on PA. Did not see any mention of a CL barrel. Not a huge deal but something you get with PSA Premium and CHF barrels. I'd get the PSA for the FN barrel. (Their receivers are usually machined by aero btw).

I own the mid-length Aero AC-15m and a pile of PSA rifles.  I don't know that I'd say either is significantly better than the other.  They will both make an excellent first AR.  With Aero, you get a complete rifle out of the box.  With PSA, you get more options but some assembly required.

Shoot!  That's too bad, Thaddy!  Curious, which rifle did you attempt to buy?  My money says the S&W?  I think it would have been a great first rifle.  

My advice (not even worth 2 cents) would be to keep looking for that complete rifle.  There is an unlimited number of options to go with on a build your own, or even a pin an upper to a lower from PSA.  The only reason I can see with going with a complete upper, from say PSA, would be to gain a low profile gas block with a free floating rail.  This would get rid of the front sight A post on say the Ruger, S&W, or the Aero.  If you are going to stay with the A post front sight, I would highly recommend staying with a complete rifle, from a reputable company, shoot it a lot, learn what you like and don't like and start saving for your next rifle - which will most likely be a build.  

Keep us all posted.  I have seen good advice given - except for the one poster who claimed Ruger and S&W are junk.  Simply not true!

So what would be a difference between said "blem kit" and this one from Brownells? http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/receiver-parts/receivers/lower-receivers/ac-15-5-56mm-16-mid-length-rifle-prod82606.aspx

BLEM = blemished.  They're advertised as "may have cosmetic blemishes which do not affect function."  .  Could be a scratch or swirl in the finish.  Its not uncommon to get a blem upper or lower and not be able to find the blemish.