"Entry Level" thoughts

[uncledoggle]

It's not the rifle.

 

[hdwhit]

Pro2nd wrote:
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,...

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.

 

[Pro2nd]

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....

 

[Pro2nd]

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?

 

[JaPes]

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?

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.

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

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.

 

[JaPes]

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

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.

 

[Pro2nd]

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.
.

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..

 

[Pro2nd]

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.

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!..

 

[Brian in Oregon]

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.

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.

 

[WVSig]

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..

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

 

[WVSig]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

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.

 

[Pro2nd]

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!

 

[Imabmwnut]

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.

Somebody talking bout me.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

what happen to my reply above?
Did it get deleted?

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

 

[cyphertext]

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.

 

[Pro2nd]

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..

 

[WVSig]

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

 

[Pro2nd]

So then why the need for the thread. LOL

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?

 

[Brian in Oregon]

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

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.