Quote:
Originally Posted by hdwhit
Really?
The metallurgy of 4150 vs. 4140 steel is immaterial to all but most abusive shooters. For most, the difference will only matter to the shooter's grandchildren.
The mid-length gas system is something of note as every inch makes a big difference in the temperature (and hence errosivity) of the returning gas.
Everything else in the post is a matter of personal preference and so only makes one rifle "better" than another in the opinion of the particular buyer. These are not absolute superiorities.
|
Yes really. The barrel is better from a pure objective standpoint in terms of longevity. It might not matter to the avg guy plinking 500 rounds a year but that does not change objective reality.
The trigger is objectively better. Pull the trigger on the avg Sport II vas a BCM with the PNT or the Saint and the BCM made trigger is better. It is smoother and crisper than the one found in a Sport II.
Heat shielded hand guards are a positive. S&W leaves them off as a cost cutting measure they are not removed to improve the rifle. Only downside to them is a small amount of weight.
I think we both agree on the mid length gas system is an improvement. I would also put the bolt carrier group as an objective improvement. If you could have a tested FA bolt vs a SA untested bolt for the same price which you take?
The rest of the upgrades are subjective in their value but if you look at this forum closely, and I know you do, you will see that the most common alterations of the Sport II rifles are the grip, the stock and the foregrip. Many find the parts bin before ever making it to the range. Even if you like othe designs better the grip and the stock are improvements over the stock GI configuration found on the Sport II.
I agree that some people might not see as much value in the furnature as others but the Saint is a little higher up the food chain then the budget Sport II. IMHO YMMV