Rastoff
US Veteran
Why do you assume that? The OP asked how it compares to any M&P15.
The SAINT VS ANY M&P 15
- Thread starter Disabled1
- Start date
Guess it was a mixture of seeing WVSig's post and mixing up another post with this one. Just seems in general though everybody compares rifles to the sport vs a rifle that is closer to the same class wither in price or feature wise.
cyphertext
US Veteran
Many folks will base the comparison on looks. Let's face it, from 5 ft away in a rack behind the counter, the Sport II and the Colt LE6920 look the same. And with the Sport costing what it does, many folks are trying to figure out what the other rifles do that the Sport doesn't. Sure S&W offers other rifles that compare more favorably to the Colt based on features, but if you base it on configuration only, many folks new to the platform are left wondering why that Colt costs so much more.
hdrolling
US Veteran
Agreed, I just went through this.
My wife said I could get an AR for Christmas and it's been on my bucket list for a while.
So before she changed her mind I reviewed AR's on line, the two that were always in everyone's online top 10 list in my price range were the Colt and the sport II.
I called our local store and asked if they had one of each in stock, they had one colt and 6 sport II's.
When I went to look the colt was a lightweight model and they wanted $1400sih for it, a little more than I wanted to pay for a base AR.
They had one sport II that they already installed a drop in rail hand gaurd/ pistol grip/butt stock/cheapo reflex sight and an angled forward grip for $900.
The sport II looked and felt better for my first owned AR, so that's why I bought it. I have added a Magpul BAD and a Raptor charging handle but other than that plan to leave at least the upper alone.
I have my eye on a DDm4v11 upper receiver that a buddy is selling that I can add a scope to and just switch out at the range with my sport II upper.
OP
Disabled1
US Veteran
I used to build my own AR's. Only a few, but, it was the smart thing to do. And, being that the prices are low right now, and will continue to drop, (Thanks D.T.
) it only makes sense to build your own, ONLY IF YOU'RE CAPABLE of doing so!I currently own (2) AR's; A Sport I, and an AR-556. I don't favor one or the other. They each have their good points and bad, but, thats to be expected.
Member WVSig gives great advice about building budget AR's, but, with good quality parts! I'm sure that the Colt Fanboys would turn their noses up to this. But hey, to each their own. With the new SAINT out now, I "might" pick it over a Colt. I really can't say for sure because I have yet to shoot one. But, the stats on it (SAINT) sure look good on paper!
Last edited:
hdwhit
Member
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
Last edited:
If you want to compare then Saint based on current market and $$ to something in the S&W line I would put it up against the older version of the M&P 15T. It is going for $799- $850 but you are buying a rifle that is going to be discontinued in it current configuration.
The barrel on the 15T is great but you are going to get a quad rail which for the post part are going the way of the dinosaurs. The grip and stock are the same as the Sport II do really you are paying extra for the barrel and the outdated quad rail. Once the new Mlok version is out the price if one will push higher than the Saint.
The reason the Saint keeps getting compared to the Sport II is because at $800 there is a bit of a dead zone in the S&W offering. You jump from the $500-$600 Sport II to the normally $1000+ 15T.
To me the Saint is attempting to be like the Colt Magpul MOE additions. A basic out of the box rifle that is slightly upgraded from the GI M4 look for a slightly higher price.
I might be coming off as a SA fanboy here but I really am not. I don't own a single SA product and I have no intentions on buying a Saint. I generally don't buy complete rifles anymore. The only ones that are attractive to me are the OEM ones that ship with no furnature so I can configure that the way I want it.
Arik
Member
I try not to get into these discussions. I go with what's been proven. I don't care that I live in suburbia and not in a futuristic Mad Max Walking Dead apocalypse. Everything else is background noise. Especially when the differences are only a $100 or two dollars
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
bloodlord77
Member
Please tell me this is not a serious inquiry.
And so you went with... LOL
Arik
Member
I went with 2 Colts. 6920 and 6721. Both were used police rifles that cost me around $700 OTD
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Nothing wrong with a Colt. I still like my old LEO marked 6920, back when they came with a carry handle, even with the Surefire Quadrail I put on it years ago. I take it out whenever I make pizzas so I can grate the cheese. LOL
In all seriousness the Colt is a quality proven rifle that will get the job done and is a great choice. The only downside to Colts are the cost of ownership and buying a used patrol rifle is a great way to avoid that downside!
Do you run it stock?
cyphertext
US Veteran
Yes really.
You sound like you disagree on the barrel material, yet you admit that the difference could be advantageous to abusive shooters and to the shooter's grandchildren... so really you do agree with me. Because if you look back at what I said, I said it is a better rifle "on paper".
Looks like you agree that the midlength gas system has some advantageous over the carbine.
I agree that furniture is a personal preference, but almost any hand guard with a heat shield is better than what comes on the Sport. (yet I still have the factory furniture on my Sport
)Full auto bolt carrier vs semi auto bolt carrier... Maybe the advantages can only be measured by guys in lab coats, but they agree that it is better for the reliability of the rifle. After all, the semi auto bolt was brought on by gun control measures to ensure that a semi rifle could not be modified into a full auto, not because it was better for the operation of the rifle. Again, still using what came stock in my Sport, as I wouldn't spend money to replace a working part, but when buying one for a build, I bought the full auto carrier.
Trigger... a slicked up trigger is better than a stock trigger. If I were buying a replacement trigger, it may not be the one I would choose, but it could be enough improvement to make a guy stick with it vs. a replacement trigger. Again, my Sport has the stock trigger... rifle built for my son does not have a stock GI trigger.
With a good shooter and quality ammo, does all of this make a difference that can be seen at the range? Maybe, maybe not. But on paper, spec wise, the Saint is the better rifle. Whether it is the better buy for your use is a different conversation.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Looks like we've about covered the subject of the Saint and any possible comparison to the Sport.
(from Long Guns M&P Section)
Gentlemen, this isn't the "AR" section. It's the M&P AR section. Now that doesn't mean we can't mention other brands or comperatives when it's relevant and fits into a discussion, but threads dedicated to another brand need to go in the other brand section.
We'll move this thread here -
http://smith-wessonforum.com/firearms-knives-other-brands/
(from Long Guns M&P Section)
Gentlemen, this isn't the "AR" section. It's the M&P AR section. Now that doesn't mean we can't mention other brands or comperatives when it's relevant and fits into a discussion, but threads dedicated to another brand need to go in the other brand section.
We'll move this thread here -
http://smith-wessonforum.com/firearms-knives-other-brands/
Last edited:
Brian in Oregon
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 678
- Reaction score
- 914
Your assertion only works if you like the Bravo Company furniture that comes standard on the Saint. Otherwise you'll spend an extra $100 upgrading the Saint as well.
