"Entry Level" thoughts

To be honest with y'all..
I have never really bought into the whole "Entry Level" thing.. for the most part..

Sorta like I view guitars for example..

I have seen/heard players on $5000 Gibson Less Pauls who played like ****, sounded horrible etc..

Conversely.. I have seen/heard some cats playing on $75 pawn shop specials who owned it!

This is just a random example (I realize the differences in wood, structure, Pickups, tuners yada yada)..
but just saying..

To me.. "Entry Level" = "Affordable" or perhaps "Basic" etc. so to speak..

The term "Entry level" to me, seems to imply that the item is only good to "Get started with", but is not good enough to perform the job at hand, Well enough to consider it a long term use item (hope that explanation made sense, not sure how to describe)..

All that said, I could not POSSIBLY be any more pleased with my Purchase of the M&P Sport 2...

"Entry level" for me means the rifle has a fair amount of compromises within its build spec in order to meet a price point. Most of the time they are using a industry standard, for example the Colt 6920 or M4, which is what the Sport II is attempting to clone or replicate.

Most "entry level" gun AR15s like the Sport II use the Colt M4 as a blueprint on which to build their rifle. From there they take short cuts which help to lower production the cost of the gun. Thinks like a 1/9 twist, no shielding in the handguard, semi auto BCG, a milspec like trigger made from MIM, different barrel profile, choice of metals which they won't disclose, lack of HP hardness testing, cheap stock and grip.

None of those things make the Sport II bad. It makes it what it is which is an "entry level" rifle. It replicates the more expensive Colt and a much lower price point. The short cuts that they have taken will not effect the lowest end shooter because they will not know any better and most likely not demand too much from the rifle. A good shooter will understand its limitations and still be able to get it to perform within certain criteria.

The Sport II is a basic no frills shooter and if you understand what you are getting I highly recommend it but it is a "entry level" rifle which does not mean it is bad.

I hear what you're saying., but what exactly would a purchaser of a sport 2 be "Entering"?

I mean if talking jobs/work, entry level may be working at a fast food joint until you can get a better paying job etc..

I just don't get what the end game is, that would make something like the sport two a Entry Level item..
there has to be an end game/goal for something to be only considered an entry level whatever, No?

Entry level is for beginners. Once you find out you are a lousy shot, you spend a fortune trying to cure it with expensive "pro" guns and gizmos.

Joe Hohmann said:

Entry level is for beginners. Once you find out you are a lousy shot, you spend a fortune trying to cure it with expensive "pro" guns and gizmos.

Click to expand...

right!!! LOL

Pro2nd said:

I hear what you're saying., but what exactly would a purchaser of a sport 2 be "Entering"?

Click to expand...

In my view it's a way to relatively inexpensively "enter" the world of ARs. It's like a "starter home". When I hear "starter home" I think of a small, reasonably priced, no frills, maybe needs some work, home. It's a stepping stone when 1/ you've never owned a home before and you need to learn how it all works and 2/ the intent (by definition) is that it won't be your final home - but it helps you build to your next home....one that is better and that you want more.

So to me an entry AR's purpose is to expose someone to the world of ARs, which might include some modifications, so someone can then conclude "Yep - I'm now sure I want to lay out $1,400 (or whatever) on a nice AR." And if, after using the entry AR, they decide they're satisfied and don't feel a need to go higher end, then the purchaser is not out a ton of money.

Now....if only the purchase of an entry AR could build equity - so it would help on the down payment of the next AR. But alas, that's not the case. :-(

OR

Guess the M16a1 I had in RVN was a entry level AR,didn't have any frills except for full auto which isn't what it is cracked up to be. Are you really going to be in a situation that requires 1,000 rounds to be expended to get you safely out of it? Never felt like I had any entry level firearms as they would all get the job done, I pull the trigger and a bullet comes out and hits reasonably close to my point of aim.

I was viewing a thread about the S&W Sport on another forum. The consensus was that it was inexpensive, reliable, and ate any ammo.

One poster said it was "the AK of AR's." I kind of liked that.

I don't know. I have a Sig M400 I bought for like $1200 a few years ago. I have a Sport II I got last month for $500. Yeah, there are some things on the Sig that are nicer, but I mean, its like power seats and navigation type stuff. If I had that opportunity at the Sport in 2013 for $650, I'd have gotten it all day though.

So lets compare (and I'm not saying that a M400 is an upper tier rifle by any means, but its twice as much as the Sport so thats a pretty good comparison point here).

The sig barrel is chrome lined, but I'm not going to burn out an AR barrel myself.
Sig has a 1:7 twist. All I shoot are the affordable 55gr and either barrel shoots it fine.
Sig has a QR socket built into the lower - thats kind of neat I guess.
Sig has a left side mag release button - I never use it. Not left handed.
Sig has a friction button that puts pressure on the upper to prevent it from having play - neat again, but not worth $700
Sig trigger was garbage. Smith trigger wasn't so bad.
Sig came with Magpul furniture that I replaced. M&P had crappy furniture that I'm in the process of replacing.
Sig shot a half inch group at 75yds with a 4x dot scope and bulk ammo - haven't tried such with the Sport, but its solid from 140yds off the side of a tree on an 8" gong with a 2moa red dot.

Really, for what I would do with it, if I don't have an AR and am buying one, I'm getting a Sport II and saving the cash for whatever else. For an average shooter, it will get you by. If you have the cash for a high dollar AR, by all means have at it. If you feel the need to splurge for bragging rights with your friends, again thats your deal. But I really can't find a negative to spending less on a rifle like the Sport II for the casual shooter. I've got $525 in the rifle. $175 in a rail, and $29 for a front MBUS I found online. I dont think I could have done much better for $729 even if I'd have tried to build one from the ground up. And again, I paid $1250 I think for the stock Sig after tax. Its a good gun, but its just not that much better I dont think. I could rebarrel the Sport if the reason came around and still be well under that mark.

vonn said:

Guess the M16a1 I had in RVN was a entry level AR,didn't have any frills except for full auto which isn't what it is cracked up to be. Are you really going to be in a situation that requires 1,000 rounds to be expended to get you safely out of it? Never felt like I had any entry level firearms as they would all get the job done, I pull the trigger and a bullet comes out and hits reasonably close to my point of aim.

Click to expand...

Right!

and hey, 101st I see.. right on man!

WVSig said:

"Entry level" for me means the rifle has a fair amount of compromises within its build spec in order to meet a price point. Most of the time they are using a industry standard, for example the Colt 6920 or M4, which is what the Sport II is attempting to clone or replicate.

Most "entry level" gun AR15s like the Sport II use the Colt M4 as a blueprint on which to build their rifle. From there they take short cuts which help to lower production the cost of the gun. Thinks like a 1/9 twist, no shielding in the handguard, a milspec like trigger made from MIM, different barrel profile, cheap stock and grip.

None of those things make the Sport II bad. It makes it what it is which is an "entry level" rifle. It replicates the more expensive Colt and a much lower price point. The short cuts that they have taken will not effect the lowest end shooter because they will not know any better and most likely not demand too much from the rifle. A good shooter will understand its limitations and still be able to get it to perform within certain criteria.

The Sport II is a basic no frills shooter and if you understand what you are getting I highly recommend it but it is a "entry level" rifle which does not mean it is bad.

Click to expand...

A twist rate other than 1:7" and its barrel profile other than (presumably) an M4 is a sign of an entry level gun?

I consider those options, and one of the things that attracted me to the Sport II, as I prefer a slower twist and a non-M4 pattern barrel.

Entry Level AR = AR 15 built to a price point of around $575. Manufacturers achieve their price point via:

• Economies of scale.
• Less costly parts choices.
• Less costly parts manufacturing for any in-house produced parts.
• Decreasing labor cost through decreased assembly complexity and/or enforcing higher assembly production quotas.

An entry level AR-15 does not imply a bad rifle. There are several excellent AR-15's built for the entry level AR-15 price point. The issue is that under the previous presidential administration, the political climate was less friendly to firearms enthusiasts than the current one. Fear of a possible ban on several types of firearms and features drove demand sky high. Established hi volume manufacturers could not keep up with demand.

First, the established manufacturers increased the output of their existing manufacturing lines to meet demand. Speeding up output can cause quality and quality control to decrease. Next thing you know, you have more out of the box issues with entry level rifles.

Second, the increased demand opened up the market for small outfits to start cranking out AR-15's at a price point. There was a time where PSA wasn't cranking out firearms like they are now. Core 15, RGuns, I can't remember all of the smaller outfits that popped up seemingly overnight. Smaller outfit cranking out price point AR-15's to fill demand, and you get a higher incidence of out of the box entry level AR-15's with issues.

IMO, this is how the phrase "Entry Level" and "Beginner Rifle" became associated with a negative connotation.

Conflate that with the fact that most individuals buying an "Entry Level" or "Beginner Rifle" are inexperienced firearms enthusiasts without any background information on the AR-15 on which to evaluate an AR-15 in front of them. Next thing you know you get the inevitable threads where entry level price point rifle buyers ask how to replace near every part on their entry level AR-15. How do I remove the front sight post? I want to put handguard X on my rifle, which length do I buy? Etc...

Brian in Oregon said:

A twist rate other than 1:7" and its barrel profile other than (presumably) an M4 is a sign of an entry level gun?

I consider those options, and one of the things that attracted me to the Sport II, as I prefer a slower twist and a non-M4 pattern barrel.

Click to expand...

Great that makes it a better deal for you but they did not build it that way to make it better they built it that way to make is cheaper to produce. That again does not make it bad. It does not mean it it low quality it just means that price of production drove the design.

They did not say design the very best AR15 we can build and we will price it based on what you create. They said we need to design a rifle that retailers can sell for as low as $500 which will still have profit margin in it for us, the distributor and the retailer. S&W did an excellent job designing and building the Sport II with that business model. Others have not done as well.

How is a 1:9 twist barrel cheaper to produce than a 1:7 or 1:8 twist?

arnoob said:

How is a 1:9 twist barrel cheaper to produce than a 1:7 or 1:8 twist?

Click to expand...

They are cheaper because of economy of scale. Correct me if I am wrong but the Thompson division of S&W makes the barrel for S&W AR15s. They also make OEM barrels for other companies and sell them at retail. More entry level rifles are sold then any other price point. By changing the barrel to the highest volum spec S&W is increasing the economy of scale for their product and every other 1/9 AR 15 barrel Thompson produces. I am not a bolt action guy but isn't the 1/9 the most common for bolt action rifles? It's a win win! They did not change from the original 1/8 5R barrel because the 1/9 is better. LOL

1/9 twist is chosen for many "entry level" AR15s because it stabilizes 55gr bullets well. Most people buying a $500 rifle are not blasting away with 72gr $1 a piece bullets, or so I have been told many time when I state 1/9 doesn't like heavier bullets. They shoot the cheapest often steel cases smmo they can get their hands on. 99% of the time that is 55gr. So when building and specing a "entry level" rifle for budget shooters it makes sense.

^^^ Bingo.

I totally understand what everyone is saying, but I still have a different mind set.. its not that the term bothers me, or offends me.. LOL!..

But it just doesn't seem to fit, from MY view...
Even though I have used the term my self a time or two..

To me, its like me pulling up to an inter section in my ole Chevy K5 blazer, that has a carb, regular dist, drum brakes on the rears etc..

And some guy in a new chevy truck (Computer on wheels), Yelling over saying "Nice entry Level 4 wheel drive" LOL..

If GM decided to re release the 69 Chevy Truck EXACTLY the same as it was originally, Drum brakes and all, I would pick it over a Significantly more modern/precise Truck with EFI (MUCH better fuel mileage) all the bells and whistles etc.

would someone holler over, Hey, nice entry Level truck? LOL

either way, again I do get what y'all are saying..

I think that getting and entry level AR 15 that goes bang every time and shoots sub 2 inch groups at 100 yards is a good deal. The funny thing with a lot of these AR's is because they are modular most people spent a lot of money changing them with different parts like triggers, stocks, handguards, Etc. and end up with an AR15 that costs as much as a Colt 6920 LE.

I have 3 AR's and all are entry level with one being a DPMS Sportical (no dust cover or forward assist) 1/9 twist , a S&W Sport II 1/9 twist, and a PSA Freedom Stainless barrel upper with a 1/7 twist rate and a PSA Lower. My only additions were Nikon P223 3x9x40mm scopes on these three AR's.

I shoot my reloads which are 95% 55 grain FMJ or 55 grain Nosler ballistic tips. I plan on loading some 72 grain bullets for the PSA in the near future.

I'm fairly new to ARs. I've been using my guns as they came from the factory and will likely leave them that way. With the exception of a conventional scope sight (nothing that uses a battery) and perhaps a sling someday, I don't modify, replace, or add anything. These guns work pretty well as is. However, (and I don't say this with critical intent) there are probably many among the customizers and gadget-oriented who are unaware of that.

Since I didn't know whether I would have a sustaining interest in ARs, I bought Colt products. Regardless of real or perceived advantages or drawbacks of Colt ARs, they remain the standard for comparison. Initial cost may be a little higher than some other guns, but Colt retains a high resale value where others may not.

Entry level or not, it shoots the same bullets as a top of the line rifle.