Dobe
May 28, 2007, 02:29 PM
This past Sunday, I took my son to a local indoor range. He is in on leave from a tour in Iraq with the U.S. Army.
He is on his second tour, and was glad to be home. I might add, we were glad to have him home.
We started out just before our range time at Wal Mart acquiring four boxes of Winchester Value Pak in 9mm.
I realize a true range test would incorporate a wide variety of 9mm hollow points, but I’m doing this test on a budget.
We had shot the day before, so our thumbs were still sore from loading P7M8 magazines. So, even though I was
looking forward to the shoot and quality time with my son, I wasn’t looking forward to loading mags. We picked up a
couple of B-27’s, plus the Shoot’n See targets I had in my range bag.
At first glance you would think that the AR-24 was a CZ 75-B. It’s the frame that gives it that appearance. Having been
a long time fan of the CZ 75, I was drawn to the lines of the new AR-24. I really don’t wish to give a comparison of this new AR
to the CZ for two reasons. One, this propagates some to feel they must defend their handgun against the new comer.
Second, there are enough magazine articles giving some differences between the two. Therefore, on separate post, I have
or will give a few comparisons when the topic arises. With that in mind, I’ll give a description of the things that are of high
importance to me.
Overall:
1. The gun is pleasing to the eye. The lines are great, and flow well. The curves of the frame include the classic rounded trigger
guard and a deeply swept-in back strap. This adds to the aesthetically pleasing overall handgun. There is some confusion that the
AR-24 has a hump on the slide similar to the Bren 10. It does not. The frame and slide are forged steel. This is something I appreciate.
2. The AR-24 seems to be molded from my hand; it fits that well. There are a few classic auto designs, which come to mind when
you think ergonomics and autoloaders. There is the 1911-A1, BHP, and the CZ 75. To me, this is the second best fitting autoloader
I have handled. The first is the 1911-A1. I believe one of the things that makes the AR-24’s ergonomics so great is the oversized
palm swells and the back strap. The former marries the hand to the grip while the latter gives the perfect spot-weld and comfort
zone for the primary hand.
3. The sights are adequate, while not special. The sights are 3-dot type, and pick up reasonable well in an indoor range. I have
the fixed sight model, and the sights while not Novaks were easily seen in low light indoor range conditions.
4. The two magazines, which came with the AR-24 hold 15 rounds each, and are not compatible with CZ magazines. I have
no idea why this was done this way. If the manufacturer could come up with a believable valid explanation for this, I would like to hear it.
Shooting:
The trigger was long but very smooth. I really had no problem with the longer trigger pull. It seems to be about 5-6 pounds, but I have
no way to measure this at this time. If I am shooting a handgun with a 5-6 pound trigger, I would personally prefer a longer steady pull
than one with no movement until it breaks, as long as the pull is smooth. To me, the former allows for more consistent shots not lost or
thrown due to a possible torque in the pressure build up. The latter has always caused me more problems with trigger control.
Accuracy was more than acceptable for a service handgun. It is as good as or better than any other auto I have shot in this price range
plus $200. It left a pleasant smile on my face. My son is a 1911 fan also, and he instantly loved this handgun. He would shoot a full
magazine, and then I would do the same. The AR-24 never had time to cool. We went from paper to plates, and back. Function was flawless.
I have been asked by a friend’s fiancé to recommend a center fire automatic as her wedding present to him, within the $500 range.
The AR-24 will be my recommendation.
He is on his second tour, and was glad to be home. I might add, we were glad to have him home.
We started out just before our range time at Wal Mart acquiring four boxes of Winchester Value Pak in 9mm.
I realize a true range test would incorporate a wide variety of 9mm hollow points, but I’m doing this test on a budget.
We had shot the day before, so our thumbs were still sore from loading P7M8 magazines. So, even though I was
looking forward to the shoot and quality time with my son, I wasn’t looking forward to loading mags. We picked up a
couple of B-27’s, plus the Shoot’n See targets I had in my range bag.
At first glance you would think that the AR-24 was a CZ 75-B. It’s the frame that gives it that appearance. Having been
a long time fan of the CZ 75, I was drawn to the lines of the new AR-24. I really don’t wish to give a comparison of this new AR
to the CZ for two reasons. One, this propagates some to feel they must defend their handgun against the new comer.
Second, there are enough magazine articles giving some differences between the two. Therefore, on separate post, I have
or will give a few comparisons when the topic arises. With that in mind, I’ll give a description of the things that are of high
importance to me.
Overall:
1. The gun is pleasing to the eye. The lines are great, and flow well. The curves of the frame include the classic rounded trigger
guard and a deeply swept-in back strap. This adds to the aesthetically pleasing overall handgun. There is some confusion that the
AR-24 has a hump on the slide similar to the Bren 10. It does not. The frame and slide are forged steel. This is something I appreciate.
2. The AR-24 seems to be molded from my hand; it fits that well. There are a few classic auto designs, which come to mind when
you think ergonomics and autoloaders. There is the 1911-A1, BHP, and the CZ 75. To me, this is the second best fitting autoloader
I have handled. The first is the 1911-A1. I believe one of the things that makes the AR-24’s ergonomics so great is the oversized
palm swells and the back strap. The former marries the hand to the grip while the latter gives the perfect spot-weld and comfort
zone for the primary hand.
3. The sights are adequate, while not special. The sights are 3-dot type, and pick up reasonable well in an indoor range. I have
the fixed sight model, and the sights while not Novaks were easily seen in low light indoor range conditions.
4. The two magazines, which came with the AR-24 hold 15 rounds each, and are not compatible with CZ magazines. I have
no idea why this was done this way. If the manufacturer could come up with a believable valid explanation for this, I would like to hear it.
Shooting:
The trigger was long but very smooth. I really had no problem with the longer trigger pull. It seems to be about 5-6 pounds, but I have
no way to measure this at this time. If I am shooting a handgun with a 5-6 pound trigger, I would personally prefer a longer steady pull
than one with no movement until it breaks, as long as the pull is smooth. To me, the former allows for more consistent shots not lost or
thrown due to a possible torque in the pressure build up. The latter has always caused me more problems with trigger control.
Accuracy was more than acceptable for a service handgun. It is as good as or better than any other auto I have shot in this price range
plus $200. It left a pleasant smile on my face. My son is a 1911 fan also, and he instantly loved this handgun. He would shoot a full
magazine, and then I would do the same. The AR-24 never had time to cool. We went from paper to plates, and back. Function was flawless.
I have been asked by a friend’s fiancé to recommend a center fire automatic as her wedding present to him, within the $500 range.
The AR-24 will be my recommendation.