Can you imagine the consternation here if S&W made a 9mm Sport II?

I've wondered why S&W does not make a 9mm and a .40 that takes their own mags. PSA is selling 9mm lowers that take Glock mags like hotcakes.

I believe the Sport II is indeed set for a pricing point that is attractive to several types of buyers.

The phrase "entry level gun" has often been used, and I believe that is accurate, though some have used the term in a derogatory manner, just as some see a "truck gun" as a junker while others see it as a gun ready for service at any time aboard a vehicle which can take the rough storage conditions without worry about the finish, etc. I think the pricing point is attractive to those looking for their first, perhaps only, AR15. They don't care about milspec, especially milspec cosmetics like barrel profile. They are likely to be using less expensive ammunition, like in the 55 gr range, so the twist rate will provide them with better accuracy. They don't care about the lack of a swing down trigger guard, and for gloved use the trigger guard is already larger anyway. They don't know what furniture they want, so the basic will do and it won't be much of a waste to replace it when they do want to upgrade. The sights are rudimentary and at least the rear sight is replaceable. S&W is now offering an even cheaper version of the Sport II with a railed gas block (wish I had held out for it). What they definitely want is a good, reliable AR15 that has a reputable company backing it up. And S&W does with their lifetime warranty. They don't care about 4140 vs 4150 steel (if they even know about this at all), though they might want some sort of bore treatment.

Then you have those who who are not new to the AR15 game who are looking for a particular set of specs to fulfill a particular need at a good price from a reliable manufacturer. Perhaps they do not want an M4 profile barrel, nor 1:7" twist. Perhaps they prefer Melonite over chrome. Maybe they intend to replace the cheap furniture and view it as disposable. Perhaps they like a solid trigger guard area that formerly was only available with a billet lower. (I fall into this group.)

There are also those who have expensive AR15s but saw the Sport II as an affordable way to set up family members with their own AR15s. I've seen a few customers at a couple of local shops doing just that. They are kind of a blend of both groups above.

As for comparing the Sport II to a "milspec" M4, it is indeed apples and oranges.

First, the M4 is simply the latest version of a long line of AR15/M16 milspec versions.

The A1, A2, HBAR, CAR (XM177E2), etc., are all milspec versions too.

So as far as barrel profile and twist go, any of the above profiles and 1:9" twist are just as milspec as an M4 and 1:7" twist. The Sport II does not "fail" in this respect.

The Sport II had an integral trigger guard and is not per the military blueprints. Frankly I think it is superior for strength, but technically it fails milspec.

The bolt carrier is properly staked per milspec. The inside of the bolt carrier is chrome lined. Whether it meets the other bolt and bolt carrier specifications, I do not know. Have not found that information.

The Sport II has a milspec buffer tube, or at least its dimensions meet milspec. Many less expensive AR's are using commercial spec tubes.

Where the Sport II doesn't meet milspec is in the barrel metallurgy. THIS is the important comparison for those who consider meeting milspec to be important. The barrel is 4140, not the specified 4150. I don't see any magnetic particle inspection stamping, etc. It's not chrome lined, but instead has melonite treatment (which I prefer over chrome from an accuracy standpoint). Does this mean it is an inferior barrel? We're getting decent reports of accuracy from owners, so apparently not.

The Sport II also has MIM fire control parts. I don't know if MIM parts are acceptable for milspec nowadays or not. If anyone wants to enlighten us on this aspect, please do. Are MIM parts inferior to billet or forged? So far no complaints from S&W handgun owners, other than traditionalists (like me) and those who view cosmetics as important.

The Sport II does have M4 style feed ramps in the lower receiver and barrel extension, so it is meeting the current milspec.

Over the years there have been some pretty bad non-milspec AR15s made, via reverse engineering, cast receivers, inferior machining, out of spec parts, ****** barrels, etc. The Sport II is definitely not one of these.

And the more basic question is, are milspec specifications really that important for ALL areas of an AR15? There are some outstanding varmint and target barrels that are clearly not milspec, but outperform any milspec barrel. I think each potential buyer needs to decide which specifications are optional and which are mandatory for their purchase.

And finally, since comparing the Sport II to a milspec M4 is apples and oranges, the real comparison should be made to other AR15s from OTHER manufacturers in its market tier class. Compare it to other "entry level" AR15s and see how it holds up. I think that puts more proper perspective on the issue.