Ive been reading here for weeks now like its a full time job and then re-reading again! According to “the chart” the Stag Arms seems to be identical to the Colt except for barrel material. Why would one choose to spend the extra 300-400 dollars on the Colt? I’m in California and this appears to be the price difference here. Flame away if I’m deserving but I believe ive done my due diligence before asking anything.
I spent the extra money for the better steel (I own a DDM4V1) because I regularly heat it up and then let it cool down…
From what I understand, the 4150 CMV steel used as per the TDP of the rifle is more resistant to the heat cycling that a barrel would go through under extended and/or hard use.
Figure out what YOU want to use it for, then get the tool suited for the task at hand.
best of luck!
The Chart is not the be-all, end-all. Every single aspect and specification of the AR cannot possibly be included, and many manufacturers simply target the known bullet-points of the Chart for marketing purposes.
If the Stag meets your requirements and your specifications, and you can get it for $400 less, buy the Stag.
There’s a lot of difference as far as how they are assembled and even more importantly, customer service. Besides, why spend the $$$ on a Stag “plus” package when for the same price you can get a BCM, Colt, DD, etc? This makes no sense. I’d take a cheaper Spikes or PSA over a Stag “Plus” any day.
You can get a CA compliant Colt 6920 from Grant for $1050.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=6920CA
Where are you getting the Stag for $600-700?
Listen to this man.
Resist the urge of instant gratification.
Please PM me with where you are finding NIB “Premium” Stag rifles for $600.
LOL. Something interesting about these latest CA Legal 6920’s is that they now say “LE” in front of them. I was wondering if they were going to leave the “SP” there or not.
C4
Articles of faith aside…
Had you done so, you would have added this to an existing Stag or “…which brand should I buy…?” thread, instead of creating a new thread.
Comparative values, why they exist, etc., are addressed. If a specific aspect is NOT addressed, an older thread may be bumped with new info or a new question…something additive to the topic…and is preferred over starting new, needlessly repetitive threads.
Also, “Flame away…” = self-fulfilling prophesy; you bring it up, it’s gonna happen. Don’t presume to encourage such when it’s specifically DIScouraged by policy and practice. We’ve plenty of work, thanks…