MacCool

I use Pmags for the most part. There are occasional issues as they age, but no worse than USGI mags and probably fewer. The only time I've had a Pmag fail in a high round-count shooting situation has been the rare occasion where a round will get cockeyed in the mag and jam it up. OTOH, I tend to have recurring problems with aluminum mag feed lips getting bent. IMHO, Pmags stand up better for longer than USGI mags. I've never had a reason to regret using Pmags in high round count situations.

Longevity and reliability of a rifle like the AR15 is truly variable from brand to brand. A lot of people, in defending their DPMS etc rifle, will report that it's a real "tack driver". I don't understand the opinion that accuracy equals quality. The AR15 isn't a precision weapon and accuracy has nothing to do with reliability, which is the main thing one wants in a combat weapon. The weak spot in the consumer grade rifles tends to be the BCG, especially the bolt, gas key, and extractor and this is made worse by the well-known tendency for those rifles to be overgassed. That leads to more heat, more violent action of the BCG, more stress, more likely failure of those parts, especially the extractor, bolt, and gas rings, and also the receiver extension. Catastrophic failure is rare, but less rare in upper tier rifles where the BCG and bolt are proof-fired and magnafluxed. Other issues with rifles like the Bushmaster are their adherence to specs. I don't disagree that a Bushmaster or RRA that doesn't have issues with feeding, or an overly tight chamber, and does have proper staking of the gas key, and whose frame is in-spec is probably OK, but mfgrs like Noveske do more quality testing and have stricter tolerance standards and your odds of buying a reliable rifle are substantially increased. Because they test and throw away a higher percentage of their parts, the cost goes up in favor of a rifle that will work better for longer. The other issue with the lower tier rifles is the steel they use in their barrels, that nature of the rifling, the forging method, and the quality of the bore lining. 4140 steel just doesn't hold up as long as 4150. Not likely an issue in a rifle that's going to see 3000 rounds over several years, but after 15000 rounds, you're going to see an issue. Those consumer-grade rifle mfgrs feel more confident in relaxing their spec requirments on that stuff because the vast majority of shooters just aren't going to shoot them enough for the weak spots to manifest themselves. Now, one could say that your average non-professional shooter doesn't need the level of quality and reliability that Noveske, or BCM, or DD, or Colt, or LMT builds into their rifles, and that's probably true, but a lot of it depends on what you expect from your firearms. Personally, I am inclined to go with professional grade and I go out of my way to buy firearms that are top level. I don't do that because I expect I'll have to use it someday to defend my family from the advancing hoards and I'll never (I hope) have to take my firearms into combat, but as a point of pride or whatever, I want firearms that are designed for that purpose anyway. I'm not a professional carpenter, but I buy Milwaukee drills instead of Black and Decker. I'm not a professional mechanic, but I buy my wrenches from Snap-On or MAC, not Chinese imports from Harbor Freight.

2000 rounds over three days is a lot of shooting. Most courses are less than that, maybe between 1000-1500 rounds. And most people aren't going to take 2 or 3 of those a year like I do. But I go to courses where people are shooting Bushmasters, RRA, etc, and when stressed with repeated courses of fire of multiple mags in only a few minutes, I see them fail with enough regularity that I have always resolved to have a good enough rifle that I never have to worry about being that guy. As a range plinker, those lower-tier rifles may well be good enough for most people, but I am utterly convinced of the differences between Bushmaster/DPMS/RRA/Oly/Armalite and Colt/Noveske/DD/LMT/BCM, and I wouldn't go that direction, especially when one looks at the cost differences. In most cases, you may only see ~$200 price difference between a given Bushmaster and a BCM outfitted similarly.

I cannot recommend instructional carbine courses highly enough. The amount that you will learn about function, maintenance, manual of arms, and shooting skill is vast. Even if you're not a professional gunfighter, you've chosen to own a combat weapon. I have found it very gratifying to learn how to use it in the manner and for the purpose for which it was designed even if I'll never have to use it for that purpose. Some guys like golf and spend a fortune on clubs, instruction, and greens fees even though they'll never play in a tourament in their lives. I don't golf.

I'm a medical consultant for the Sheriff's Department, mainly Tac Team and Bomb Squad, and have been for more than 16 years. I have to train with them, and I have to shoot with them to the same standards required of the deputies. We do monthly training and twice-a-year range qualifications with all of the weapons. No doubt my attitudes have been shaped by association with those highly professional law enforcement officers, and are different than your average firearms buyer. So, my opinions may well be over-the-top. But I keep coming back to the cost differential between the various tiers of weapons. You don't have to spend twice as much to get a rifle that is twice as good.

Sorry for the long rant.