S&W M&P15 Milspec M4 Clone cost vs Sport II

[WVSig]

Was looking around the other day on Slickguns and saw this rifle. It is the M&P15 with a 1:7 twist M4 profile barrel and carrying handle with A2 sights. MSRP of $1269 selling at $890.

Smith and Wesson M&P15 Black 5.56/.223 16in 30rd 1 in 7" Twist

You compare it to the Sport II which retails $499 these days with and MSRP of $739.

People often discuss in this section why the Sport II costs what it does compared to guns like the Colt 6920. The Sport II is not an apples to apples comparison to the Colt as many have pointed out. The Colt used to come with a carry handle but these days comes with Magpul MBUS sights, which is a cost saving measure. The M&P 1:7 seems like a more direct comparison. For some the carry handle will be a turn off for others is is a bonus.

What I find interesting is the price difference between the Sport II and the 1:7 guns. Is it the barrel profile, twist and the chrome linging which drives up the cost of the 1:7 or is it simply economy of scale that drives the Sport II lower?

I believe that the Sport II was spec'd to meet a price point and that the specs were chosen and refined to maintain that price point while meeting the demands of most recreational and commercial shooters. If they could have used the 1:7s spec and still produced a budget rifle they could sell at a profit they would have done it. IMHO I would speculate that S&W could not leverage enough economy of scale to produce the 1:7 to get to the price point of the Sport II or budget rifle range.

Thoughts?

 

[cyphertext]

I think the only ones who can answer this is S&W. I've often wondered this as well... when you look at the limited specs, many things appear to be the same, like 4140 barrel steel and receiver alloys. But the devil must be in the details that S&W aren't telling us.

Items like triggers... everyone says "mil-spec" trigger in the Sport, but it isn't. The hammer is MIM, not cast. Mine works fine, but I bet it is cheaper to produce.

Bolts... Back when the Sport first hit the market, we had info from a reliable source that the bolt was produced by Microbest. S&W used the same BCG in the rest of their line as well. With the Sport II, I don't know if that is still true. I would assume that they would use the same, due to economies of scale... but then why have different fire control groups...

With barrels, S&W made most of their rifles with 1:9 twist... I think that if their standard was 1:7, we would see that in the Sport II. Probably not M4 profile, as that is more machining. And I assume that salt nitrate bath is cheaper than chrome lining.

Brings me back to my question on Sport II and Sport II ORC vs. M&P 15 OR. Back in the day, the original Sport and the M&P 15 OR were very close in price. Today, the Sport sells for $525 and the OR still sells for the same price it did many years ago... I want to know what the real differences are that allow the Sport to meet such a lower price point.

 

[Mark IV]

....... But the devil must be in the details that S&W aren't telling us.....
.......I want to know what the real differences are that allow the Sport to meet such a lower price point.

Good post here, I've been wondering the same things. I've had upper-end AR's (Colt, DD,Spikes) and wheeled-n-dealed through a couple Sports (I's and II's) and currently have a Sport II that I'm pleased with.
From what I've read, they cut financial corners on the barrel steel (not a big deal,realistically), and on the furniture (also not an issue for me), and yeah, the melonite/nitride treatment saves them money over chroming the bore (I'd prefer the longevity of chrome, but at this price point, and for my casual uses, this ain't a deal breaker, either).
The MIM fire control group was news to me, but from what I understand about modern MIM, this doesn't seem to be the concern many people make it out to be.
But, (again, as I've read) the upper and lower receivers, and BCG's, are identical to their top-line models, which I was very encouraged by, assuming this is accurate. (does anyone know for sure?)
So to summarize, I'm thinking they put these out cheap via several factors: they already have a large,efficient production operation in place, they use a barrel that's cheaper (inside and out), they use the cheapest plastic furniture available, and MIM instead of forged/machined parts. Also, I suspect the Sports may be something of a "loss leader", something they more-or-less break even on, in order to steal market share from all the smaller competitors.

 

[Disabled1]

Good post here, I've been wondering the same things. I've had upper-end AR's (Colt, DD,Spikes) and wheeled-n-dealed through a couple Sports (I's and II's) and currently have a Sport II that I'm pleased with.
From what I've read, they cut financial corners on the barrel steel (not a big deal,realistically), and on the furniture (also not an issue for me), and yeah, the melonite/nitride treatment saves them money over chroming the bore (I'd prefer the longevity of chrome, but at this price point, and for my casual uses, this ain't a deal breaker, either).
The MIM fire control group was news to me, but from what I understand about modern MIM, this doesn't seem to be the concern many people make it out to be.
But, (again, as I've read) the upper and lower receivers, and BCG's, are identical to their top-line models, which I was very encouraged by, assuming this is accurate. (does anyone know for sure?)
So to summarize, I'm thinking they put these out cheap via several factors: they already have a large,efficient production operation in place, they use a barrel that's cheaper (inside and out), they use the cheapest plastic furniture available, and MIM instead of forged/machined parts. Also, I suspect the Sports may be something of a "loss leader", something they more-or-less break even on, in order to steal market share from all the smaller competitors.

I was with you there up until your last sentence. I don't think S&W makes a firearm to break even on, or, to take a loss to get more business in other areas.
I saw that Academy has the OR M&P-15 for $849.99. I would rather have a SAINT, or, a COLT OEM-1 or 2, and still would be paying less than the OR.
Maybe someone can call S&W and ask them what the difference is between the OR & the Sport II. I too am very interested in knowing how they differ from one another.

 

[rockquarry]

I'm confident the S&W ARs are good gun, but I've never looked at one.

You might consider just buying a Colt. They remain the standard. If it becomes necessary to sell, a Colt will be easier to sell. Comparatively, a Colt probably retains value better than other such guns.

 

[WVSig]

I was with you there up until your last sentence. I don't think S&W makes a firearm to break even on, or, to take a loss to get more business in other areas.
I saw that Academy has the OR M&P-15 for $849.99. I would rather have a SAINT, or, a COLT OEM-1 or 2, and still would be paying less than the OR.
Maybe someone can call S&W and ask them what the difference is between the OR & the Sport II. I too am very interested in knowing how they differ from one another.

Everytime I have asked those type of questions of S&W they claim not to know the answer. If you ask them specifics beyond the published specs they will not say. YMMV but that has been my experience when you ask about production methods, metallurgy etc.

 

[cyphertext]

I'm confident the S&W ARs are good gun, but I've never looked at one.

You might consider just buying a Colt. They remain the standard. If it becomes necessary to sell, a Colt will be easier to sell. Comparatively, a Colt probably retains value better than other such guns.

We aren't discussing Colts here... The topic is comparing two S&W rifles...

 

[cyphertext]

Everytime I have asked those type of questions of S&W they claim not to know the answer. If you ask them specifics beyond the published specs they will not say. YMMV but that has been my experience when you ask about production methods, metallurgy etc.

Yep, back in the days of "the chart" (I hear the groans), S&W would reply that the specs were proprietary.

 

[WVSig]

We aren't discussing Colts here... The topic is comparing two S&W rifles...

I think the cost differences must be in the machining of the barrels and economy of scale. I can't believe that the trigger groups, BCGs, etc.. could be all that different to warrant the almost $400 up charge.

The 1:7 definately has a different lower because it uses a a squared off trigger guard vs the integrated trigger guard on the Sport II.

 

[rockquarry]

Just trying to solve an apparent dilemma. Pardon me.

 

[hdwhit]

cyphertext wrote:
I want to know what the real differences are that allow the Sport to meet such a lower price point.

Price and Cost are two different things.

Cost is a measure, expressed in monetary terms, of the inputs used in creating a product. There are many types of cost. Direct Costs represent the value of the inputs used to create one particular product. Fully Absorbed Cost represents the value of all inputs (engineering, support staff, advertising, the cost of the factory, etc.) used in the creation of one particular product. I suspect there are as many cost definitions as there are Managerial Accountants to come up with them.

Price, on the other hand, is what someone is willing to pay to own a particular item. The principles of marketing tell us that price is to be set on the basis of "what the market will bear". And we see this in action with this very rifle. The Sport II you say now retails for $499 was flying off the shelves of my LGS six months ago for $649 - and then they raised the price to $679 and still couldn't keep them in stock. The cost of building a Sport II didn't drop by nearly $200 in that time, but what people were willing to pay did.

S&W clearly intends the Sport II to be its "mainstream" product and so it's price hews close to what the most price-sensitive buyers are willing to pay. Adding a chrome barrel doesn't double the cost for S&W to make an AR, but because people perceive a chrome lined barrel to be vastly superior to a melonited barrel, it does nearly double the price because people are willing to pay it.

So, the answer to your question is that just like adding $125 worth of leather upholstery to a car raises its price by $2,000, the market is willing to pay dramatically higher prices for M&P-15 models with comparatively inexpensive additions.

 

[WVSig]

Price and Cost are two different things.

Cost is a measure, expressed in monetary terms, of the inputs used in creating a product. There are many types of cost. Direct Costs represent the value of the inputs used to create one particular product. Fully Absorbed Cost represents the value of all inputs (engineering, support staff, advertising, the cost of the factory, etc.) used in the creation of one particular product. I suspect there are as many cost definitions as there are Managerial Accountants to come up with them.

Price, on the other hand, is what someone is willing to pay to own a particular item. The principles of marketing tell us that price is to be set on the basis of "what the market will bear". And we see this in action with this very rifle. The Sport II you say now retails for $499 was flying off the shelves of my LGS six months ago for $649 - and then they raised the price to $679 and still couldn't keep them in stock. The cost of building a Sport II didn't drop by nearly $200 in that time, but what people were willing to pay did.

S&W clearly intends the Sport II to be its "mainstream" product and so it's price hews close to what the most price-sensitive buyers are willing to pay. Adding a chrome barrel doesn't double the cost for S&W to make an AR, but because people perceive a chrome lined barrel to be vastly superior to a melonited barrel, it does nearly double the price because people are willing to pay it.

So, the answer to your question is that just like adding $125 worth of leather upholstery to a car raises its price by $2,000, the market is willing to pay dramatically higher prices for M&P-15 models with comparatively inexpensive additions.

Fully understood except that no one buys the S&W 1:7 so the market does not see any additional value in the differences. I have seen a lot of posts here of people with M&P 15Ts, Sport II, Sport Is, Magpul Moes etc.... but never 1:7s.

Also all I can say to some one paying $679 for a Sport II is "There's a sucker born every minute." The Sport II is a good rifle but at $679 that local dealer is taking advantage of the people.

When I am talking about cost I am talking directly about what it "cost" S&W to build the rifle. They will never tell us but we can speculate. They certainly have cut some corners on the Sport II but none that have been problematic for the rifle within its intended use.

Since we do not know and will never been told what it "costs" we end up talking about "price." I believe that price is so dependent on market factors like fear and panic. I also believe that S&W is trying to tier their offers but that the Sport II and the earlier Sports are so solid not many people buying S&W ARs are moving up their food chain.

Most people looking for premium ARs are looking at other brands.

 

[cyphertext]

Just trying to solve an apparent dilemma. Pardon me.

I'm not sure how "buy a Colt" answered the question of why there is such a delta in price between two Smith and Wesson models...

 

[Pro2nd]

Also all I can say to some one paying $679 for a Sport II is "There's a sucker born every minute." The Sport II is a good rifle but at $679 that local dealer is taking advantage of the people.

When I am talking about cost I am talking directly about what it "cost" S&W to build the rifle. They will never tell us but we can speculate. They certainly have cut some corners on the Sport II but none that have been problematic for the rifle within its intended use.

Since we do not know and will never been told what it "costs" .

the bold/underline is how I feel about people who drop a stack of cash on a "high end" AR.. to me, its just a waste of money..

I would happily pay that for a S&W sport II.. because I like it.. and as I have mentioned before, I am simply a S&W fan/supporter, plus.. I like to support my local businesses.. even if it cost me a bit more to do so....

and as far as us not knowing "What it cost to produce" that applies to literally everything.. car, refrigerator, you name it..

 

[rockquarry]

cyphertext -Again, I apologize. Colt had already been mentioned previously more than once. I thought spades had been broken, so to speak...

 

[Pro2nd]

cyphertext -Again, I apologize. Colt had already been mentioned previously more than once. I thought spades had been broken, so to speak...

Colt had been referenced 5 times prior to you posting..
Three times in the very first opening post in this thread..

But I do understand that the discussion is suppose to be about the Various S&W AR's,,

 

[Disabled1]

cyphertext -Again, I apologize. Colt had already been mentioned previously more than once. I thought spades had been broken, so to speak...

RQ, I am not looking to buy a Colt. We are trying to figure out the difference between the M&P OR and the Sport II and why they are so far apart in price, yet, look the same, have the same parts, etc. I merely stated, that for the price of the OR, I would RATHER have a Colt or a SAINT. That's my fault for the thread drift.

 

[vonn]

Reading this thread has me thinking on costs of things that most of us as shooters have little ability to check,as in the cost of various materials used in the production of various components. Even slight differences in alloys and machining costs can add up and how tight the parts are held to some ideal tolerance level can also change costs dramatically . If a person thinks in terms of v8 engines you can pick up a factory Mr.Goodwrench type 350 for 1500 or so or build a NASCAR type small block for tens of thousands and when you compare specs they don't look to be much different but the differences in price and performance are great,the devil is in the details.

 

[cyphertext]

cyphertext -Again, I apologize. Colt had already been mentioned previously more than once. I thought spades had been broken, so to speak...

Actually, it's me guys... I apologize... just being snippy because we have recently been reminded that this is the S&W forum in other posts....

 

[Engine49guy]

What is puzzling is why in such an AR15 saturated market S&W doesnt offer a 9mm AR15 Carbine, it would be cheaper to build having less moving parts and no gas system so selling them at the $499 M&P Sport 2 pricing would net them more profit, they could even buld it with long stick mags that would also fit their 9mm M&P handgun line.