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.

__________________
Use should dictate gear!

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.

right!!! LOL

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.

__________________
Hue 68 noli me tangere

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 ****** 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.

Right!

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

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...

__________________
-John

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.

__________________
Use should dictate gear!

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

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.

__________________
Use should dictate gear!

^^^ Bingo.

__________________
-John

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.

It's not the rifle.

We are all familiar with the use of the term "Entry" or "Starter" when it comes to houses and automobiles so it's use in relation to guns shouldn't be surprising.

When used with houses and automobiles, there's no implication that the item is inadequate to the task at hand; they are perfectly adequate to the task at hand. The starter house shelters its occupant from the elements. The entry level automobile transports its occupants from point A to point B. They remain adequate but become unsatisfactory as their owner becomes more sophisticated and has the means to obtain better.

So the assumption is, folks are not sophisticated, and will want better....

And yeah, I am familiar with "Entry Level" "Starter" etc.. (Which depending on what they are referencing, I often feel are Terms used for propaganda Via "Higher End" corporations etc)..

But what can a $2000 AR do, that my Sport 2, can not?

What would be a real world example of the Sport two not saving the Day, And a $2000 AR being Needed?

I used to share your opinion. The AR-15 is a firearm built on standardized dimensions. For most new AR-15 owners, the first exposure to what is correct is the mil-spec. The military has a minimum overall materials and construction specification that manufacturers must build to in order to compete for military bids. As a civilian, we are free to go above and beyond the mil-spec.

From my experience, mass produced AR-15's in the $500 to $1,200 range are all about the same. The differences are mostly in exterior furniture. In the hands of the average marksman, equipped with similar triggers, sighting systems, and ammo differences are moot.

From my experience, the overall quality and component specifications on AR-15's does improve with AR-15's starting at about the $2K range from known, low volume, established, AR-15 manufacturers. More time is spent on quality control from parts selection, parts evaluation, build, and post build inspection. Here's the catch-22. In the hands of an average marksman, a $2K+ premium AR-15 will not evidence any practical accuracy or precision advantage than an AR-15 in the $500 to $1,200 price range. It takes the skill of an expert marksman to eke out every incremental advantage a $2K AR-15 can provide to evidence a difference.

So then why do people buy the $2K AR-15's? Some are expert marksman whom are able to eke out every bit of performance advantage that level of AR-15 build can buy. Sadly most people believe that expensive tools are a substitute for hard earned skill through purpose driven practice, not just banging away pulling a trigger. It's human nature to hold oneself in high esteem, assigning ourselves a higher skill level via slanted self assessment. It's like saying: "I buy the same shoes that Usain Bolt uses, because the shoes alone make me a faster sprinter."

The other reason is that we like to have nice things. That isn't a bad thing. I don't need to be Mario Andretti to own a Ferrari. Even though I will never have the skill of a Mario Andretti to dominate track events, I can appreciate the craftsmanship and artistry of a Ferrari. Same goes for a top of the line, fully decked out, Noveske. Even better, a Krebs Custom AK.

The reason the "Tell me what my $550 Sport 2 can't do that <insert top tier AR-15 maker> can't do?" threads is because for some silly reason people falsely believe that inanimate objects somehow signal to others the full measure of a person's worth. That fault belongs to the owner, not the rifle.

In a Red Dawn, Cubans and Russians falling out of the sky, world without rule of law, limited resource situation? Absolutely none. Do you have a working rifle? Do have ammo? Do you know how to use your rifle? Can you keep a calm head under pressure? Good. Cry "Wolverines!" and loose the dogs of war.

Out in a carbine class, banging away with inexpensive range ammo at close quarters distances? The AR-15 with slightly better build quality will last longer between failures. One way range, so it's not a big deal.

Out on the range, for a higher than average marksman, shooting an AR-15 from a bench, to distances more suited to a bolt action rifle, going for bullseye groups that evidence both precision and accuracy for bragging rights? The 2K+ AR-15 might give them that edge to win bragging rights.

Out in the real world, for an individual who's chosen profession puts them in harms way, for that individual who's profession drives them to practice until they get it wrong, then the $2K+ AR-15 with lower mean time between failure and where shot placement is life or death makes sense.

__________________
-John

You have it wrong.

The premise posited by hdwhit isn't that people are unsophisticated.

As with anything, purposeful intentional practice makes perfect. As earned skill level increases, so does one's ability to use the equipment at hand to produce the desired result. As we gain skill and experience, we gain the capability to fully utilize equipment to do the job quicker, faster, more accurate, etc. As skill increases, so does the justification to buy better equipment.

I have a table saw. I bought it at Harbor Freight. I use it to do simple work. I'm not a carpenter or cabinet builder, nor do I have any intentions to do become either. My basic, inexpensive, table saw is the perfect tool for the simple jobs which I am capable of pulling off.

My friend's hobby is woodworking. The equipment in his garage makes my head spin. His table saw can be adjusted in what appears to me to be a hundred different ways to produce what looks to me to be magic. He has both the earned skill and desire to use his expensive table saw to it's full potential.

The same can be said of firearms.

__________________
-John

Exactly.. Its as if someone spent a small fortune on their AR, and then look down on others who spent significantly less etc..
I think they often fail to realize that not everyone cares to have the "best of the best" of whatever..

Man, Honestly, I don't mean to sound argumentative, but this is all still based on assumptions..

what your Harbor freight table saw is to you, Is what the sport 2 is to others..
all they want or need.. Hence it is not a "entry Level" or "starter" weapon that they are going to want, or need to move UP from.. but rather run with it, cause it is sufficient for what they intended to use it for..

Either way, can we agree that the higher end AR's really have no advantage except for this scenario?

"Out on the range, for a higher than average marksman, shooting an AR-15 from a bench, to distances more suited to a bolt action rifle, going for bullseye groups that evidence both precision and accuracy for bragging rights? The 2K+ AR-15 might give them that edge to win bragging rights.".

And hey, I am in NO WAY knocking anyone who has spent a ton on their AR, went with TOP end etc.. no, not at ALL!..

I would like some proof that a 1:9" twist saves money over a 1:7" twist.

Now if you want to talk about TYPE of rifling instead of TWIST, then yes. Some of the higher quality S&W MP15s use a 5R style of rifling.

As for an M4 pattern barrel vs the earlier CAR pattern, this is not indicative of an entry level gun. It simply means the Sport II barrel profile is a CAR style, while the Colt M4 is, well, an M4. Colt even makes non-M4 pattern barrels on carbines. The Colt 6720 has a non-M4 pencil barrel and the 6721 has a heavy non-M4 barrel. The lack of an M4 profile certainly does not mean these are entry level guns.

I think you are focused too rigidly on the Colt M4 as an industry standard and ANY deviation from it means entry level. That just is not so.

Having said that, SOME deviations ARE indicative of entry level. Like non-staked gas key, bare metal bores vs chrome or other bore treatment, there's a whole list of these milspec features. You correctly pointed out a cheap, non-lined forend. These are what need to be examined if one is going to use the Colt M4 as a baseline. Not that an earlier pattern barrel is used or the twist rate is different.

This list gives an idea of some of the features that separate guns like the Colt M4 from entry level guns. While it does mention twist rate, it also says that this is a feature which may be deviated from because of bullet weight considerations.

M4 CHART

This page has a section that talks about anodizing:
Fulton Armory FAQ: What's a Mil-Spec AR-15 type rifle?

So let's talk about comparing the Sport II to the Colt in areas like staked gas keys, bolt carrier group, barrel steel, bore treatment, and also areas like finish (anodizing, what kind of anodizing, or powder coating, dyes, etc.), milspec or commercial buffer tube, feedramps, forged, billet or MIM parts, etc. That's what's important.

Which is exactly why people like S&W produce entry level guns like the Sport II. I don't see anyone in this thread looking down on the Sport II. I do see a some people who are being realistic about it and simply stating it is what it is.

Other people in the thread have used the term "entry level" to denote exactly what it denotes. It is the a rifle built to a price point that represents the starting price point of a particular brands line of AR15s. It is the most basic cost effective spec that will meet the basic needs of a wide range of shooters. It does not mean you can't use it as a defense rifle, varmint gun, long range target gun or TEOTWAWKI gun. It does not mean it is going to fail if you take it to a carbine class. It simply means it is what it is. In the case of a the Sport II a $500 which performs well and is a good value if it meets your needs and your criteria.

To me it seems like some of the Sport II owners get bent out of shape when people state that the gun is not the best thing since sliced bread. They seem to take personal offense when someone does not agree with their choice or the criteria which lead them to choose something else. I don't see many people tell Sport II owners they made a bad choice but I see a lot of Sport II owners tell people they don't need more and that there is no value in a $2,000 rifle. Honestly look at your verbiage.

"Some one who spent a small fortune...." For some $2,000 is a lot of money. For others it is not. Either way I would not consider $2,000 to equal a fortune no matter what the criteria within the gun world. It is a decent chunk of change but your use of hyperbole is telling. It is as if you want us to tell you that you are smarter than those who spent more because you feel like people are looking down on you for your choice. Maybe I am wrong its just an observation.

I do not look down at shooters of $500 AR15 just like I don't look up at shooters of $2,000 + AR15s. I personally look at my own needs, wants, desires and means. I try to let use dictate my gear. Within that mindset I try to maximize my $$$. I don't like to over pay for anything. I have an intended purpose I create a realistic budget and I try to beat it. This is my approach. It does not make it good or bad. My criteria is not a universal truth but is a subjective evaluation and a choice based on my individual needs wants etc...

I have almost bought a Sport II many times when they hit the $500 range because I have s desire to have truck/car AR15 what I can put in a case with 3-4 loaded mags and a basic combat red dot like a Aimpoint Pro and not worry about it. Don't care if it get knocked around or rusts a bit. God forbid it gets stolen I am not out a ton of $$$. I don't need a rail system on it. The A2 sight and carbine gas system will do just fine. It won't see high round counts just enough to know it will run if called upon. All I need it to do is go bang if I ever need it to in a cannot avoid getting involved life or death situation. In that role the Sport II makes perfect sense for me, in that particular role.

In threads like this I sort of don't understand the need to have others validate subjective choices. Why do you care what we think of your rifle or what "entry level" means if you are happy with your choice? Evaluate your needs, your budget and any other subjective criteria choose what is best for you and enjoy. Don't worry what other people call your rifle. LOL

__________________
Use should dictate gear!

I cannot give you "proof" because companies like S&W will not tell you who actually makes any of their parts or what metals are used and what processes are used to make most of the components on any of their products. So you are really setting up a strawman argument here. One which you know I cannot answer with "proof" with a big P.

The original Sport configuration came with 1/8 5R rifling which is more expensive to produce and has a lower volume presence in the market but a higher perceived value.

S&W switched to the 1/9 twist.

What we can do is use a little deduction and basic understanding of economy of scale to deduce that the 1/9 is a cost saver for S&W.

The 1/9 twist is a popular twist in entry level AR15s and Bolt rifles because it can stabilize a wide range of bullet weights.

It is especially suited for a entry level AR15 because most budget conscious shooters of AR15s shoot the cheapest ammo they can find.

The cheapest 223 ammo on the market is 55 gr steel cased or sometimes brass cased ammo.

It is believed but not confirmed that the Thompson Center part of S&W makes the in house barrels for the S&W AR15s including the Sport II.

Thompson Center produces barrels for their own line of bolt action guns, S&W, the retail market and IIRC is an OEM for other manufacturers.

The 1/9 is a very popular twist rate for bolt action rifles so one can conclude that Thompson Center makes a lot of 1/9 barrels.

In today's modern automated the more of one thing you can produce using the same spec allows you to reduce cost via economy of scale.

Economies of scale is the cost advantage that arises with increased output of a product.

Economies of scale arise because of the inverse relationship between the quantity produced and per-unit fixed costs.

Moving the Sport II to a 1/9 barrel will increase the number of 1/9 barrels produced by Thompson.

The more 1/9 barrels Thompson produces will lower the cost of production for each barrel because the cost of tooling, setup and manufacturing is spread across more units.

Lower the cost of producing a 1/9 barrel at Thompson will lower the cost of Thompson branded barrels, S&W Sport II barrels and any OEM barrels produced. This reduces costs across multiple product lines which is good for S&W.

So if look at these factors it is reasonable to deduce that the move from the original 1/8 5R twist to the current 1/9 twist was a cost saving measure which also provided cost savings to other
product lines within the S&W company.

I am only focused on the Colt M4 because the Sport II is designed to mimic the M4s appearance and it is the benchmark for the AR15 carbine rifle.

I am not attempting to go down "the list" and compare the Sport II line for line against the Colt M4. For me is it irrelevant. I do not think a good rifle has to adhere strictly to "the list". You seem to misunderstand my statements and incorrectly equate cost savings with cheap.

Every single part on the S&W Sport II is there to help minimize the cost of production. They did not set out to build the perfect rifle. They created a price point where they could make $$$ and then reverse engineered the gun to meet that price point. Many of the choices like the CAR profile and 1/9 twist might not universally yield cost savings but I can say with confidence that they did within the S&W universe or they wouldn't have gone that route on their cheapest rifle. Here are a few things which show the cost savings in the Sport II IMHO.

-semi auto BCG
-cheap grip, stock & unlined handguard
-light staking on many castle nuts
-Melonite not chrome lined barrels.
-6061 Alum buffer tube

None of these are deal breakers and none of them make the Sport II a bad rifle but they are all cost cutting measures. They all shave pennies off the cost of building the rifle and when you are talking about volume model manufacturers like S&W that and economy of scale is how you make profit in a competitive market.

None of these make the Sport II a bad rifle. I cannot say this enough times. "Entry level" or lower production cost does not necessarily mean = cheap in the sense of a bad product. It just means what it means. It costs less to produce and it is the lowest price point offering for a given company.

Clearly YMMV

__________________
Use should dictate gear!

I wouldn't lose much sleep over the term basic or affordable or starter or entry or whatever rifle.

As long as you understand what rifle you're purchasing and why that's all that counts. Now if you have no clue what you're buying or why... then that's an issue worthy of further thought.

Generally speaking, the trigger and optic on my rifle is of greater importance than any comparatives I've seen here... and neither were provided by the rifle manufacturer.

Right on man! all good, I'm over it, Was just posting my personal thoughts on the term, not a big deal..

and I hear ya!

Somebody talking bout me.

Along with others. This section isn't the rebel flag, motorcycle or tractor pictures and discussion Forum.

I had a lengthy response regarding this, but nothing really that hasn't already been said.

I used to get upset by the term "entry level" and thought it was stupid. To me, entry level is a bb-gun! But there are guns that have better specs on paper than the Sport. Those "better" specs may not make any measurable difference in how you use your firearm, but they do exist and are better in theory. As pointed out, you would expect a greater mean time between failures out of the higher spec item, but in reality you may never shoot enough rounds through your rifle to see those differences.

Enjoy your Sport for what it is.... a lower cost rifle made for the civilian market for recreational shooting and home defense. It has been proven over time to be a solid performer in that role.

Exactly my plan!, right on man..
if I wanted to enter competition etc, I'd with another option I own..

So then why the need for the thread. LOL

__________________
Use should dictate gear!

umm.. to post my "Thoughts" on the term "Entry Level"..

and the Fact that I said "Exactly my plan!, right on man..
if I wanted to enter competition etc, I'd with another option I own"..

Is proof to my PERSONAL theory that the term "Entry Level" is not a one size fits all term.. thats it..

what part confused you?

Thank you for proving my point. The comparison is NOT between the Colt M4 1:7" twist and the S&W 1:9" twist but is between the S&W 5R and non-5R rifling.

Wow, really? You are comparing mainly by cosmetic features (ie the barrel does not look like an M4) instead of actual parts considered to be important for a milspec standard?

I never said you were equating cost saving with cheap. I am saying you are claiming cosmetic differences and options define an entry level gun, and I believe anyone reading our latest exchanges can see the fallacy of that. There are manufacturers who are making M4 clones that look like the Colt M4, yet have very little of the milspec standards of Colt M4. By your definition of using cosmetics and not milspec standards, these are not entry level guns. Yet that is not so.

Again, cosmetics and twist rate are unimportant in determining an entry level gun. Deviating from what are considered to be milspec standards to create a pricing point is what defines an entry level gun. I did not say cheap or cheaply made, because that infers shoddiness. The Sport II is not shoddy. Though there are manufacturers who do make shoddy AR15s.

Also, you mentioned reverse engineering. There is no reverse engineering on S&W's. Reverse engineered AR15s are like the notorious SGW and Oly guns whose blueprints were made by measuring milspec guns, because actual blueprints in those days were not released by Armalite or Colt.

Very well said. The trick is in harnessing the skill with-out becoming overwhelmed by it.

__________________
THIS WE'LL DEFEND ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ