Quote:
Originally Posted by WVSig
Don't think it's a dead horse at all. Any rifle is only a good deal or a bad deal if it meets your specs. The whole point of the thread is that it seems like lots of people buy rifles like the Sport II when the gun doesn't seem to fit their needs requiring modification of the gun.
Sometimes that modification is very basic other times it seems more involved and that maybe another rifle would have been a better starting point. If you are done with the topic I respectfully suggest you stop posting in the thread.
|
Exactly my point. You keep throwing out alternatives to the Sport II that do not meet specs some people are looking for. If a furniture change is all the Sport II needs, vs a gun that has that furniture but is going to require a barrel change to get the twist and/or the barrel profile you want, which is the better buy? What you're not seeing is that your point ALSO applies to the guns you are comparing the Sport II to. For example, one of the guns you used for comparison had a forend that personally I would change out. So it was not a bargain for me.
You do have a valid point but are trying to make it a black and white issue when there are a lot of shades of gray in the decision making process.
The point of sinking so much money into a Sport II that it winds up being $1200 is valid. But that does not mean sinking another $150 into it makes it invalid.
One thing not mentioned in this thread is that the Sport II is a real bargain compared to trying to piece together a budget AR15 from various parts. I looked at building an AR15 that met my specs for barrel profile and twist, etc., and the Sport II could provide all that in a package that was either less expensive or nearly matched the cost of DIY. Plus having a factory lifetime warranty. If I had held out for some PSA 1:7" twists I could have built cheaper, but I did not want a 1:7" twist. I suspect that S&W took a look at the DIY AR15s and decided to target that market.