I think you're going about your specs the wrong way. You've listed aesthetic features, with nothing related to performance of the gun.
Well, I would certainly like all the accuracy, reliability and quality I can get for the money, but I assumed that was just a given (does anyone
not want those things in a gun?) and didn't come right out and say that. Is there some other "performance" spec I should consider, too?
Aside from that, I don't consider any of the features I listed "aesthetic". I want the folding sights because I want to mount an optic (without needing an elevated mount to clear fixed sights), but have the sights for backup. I want the collapsible stock for easier storage and transport, and to "fit" the gun to me as well as possible. I want the quad rail because I want to be able to mount accessories like vertical grips, lights, etc. Sure, none of these are key to the functioning of the gun as a gun, but they are necessary for the gun to function the way I want it to.
I think this piece by THR Moderator Bartholomew Roberts is a good start -
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=243382 - decide, very specifically, what you want the rifle to do. Then work on the aesthetics.
See, the problem is, I've never owned an AR before and I'm in no way an AR expert. So, most of that is right over my head. I don't know what some of those things even are, others I don't know how much the effect reliability and accuracy so I can't really make an informed decision about them. I don't want to disrespect your advice, but honestly, I'm not a gear head and I'm just not interested in all that stuff. All I would like to know is if a particular gun goes boom reliably and accurately.
Despite any arm chair fantasies I may have, realistically this is going to be a recreational gun that will mostly be used at the local range. I'm not an LEO. I don't honestly think I'm going to ever use this gun in a true SD situation, and I doubt I'll ever actually enter a "run and gun" tactical competition.
I'm not trying to make an argument for the simple sake of it, just pointing out what you mentioned. DI v. piston can be considered part of your reliability and/or ease of maintenance in terms of keeping the rifle reliable..
I've read lots of arguments for each system and there are plenty of people who feel strongly about one or the other. After all that reading I just decided I don't believe either system has a overwhelming advantage over the other, so I just don't care which my final rifle is.
Not sure why you don't see prices on the site. But your best bet for a BCM the way you like it is this.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin...&key=MID-750-C
Probably becuase I was looking at the actual BCM website, not the one you linked to. Its not a bad starting point, but again if I equip that gun the way I want, its going to cost about the same as the Ruger and more than the Smith (plus its got that
ugly fixed fore sight. Yeah, I'll admit
that's just an aesthetic judgment, but I really hate those sights). Is the quality, accuracy and reliability of the gun
significantly better than the Ruger or Smith?
Thanks again everyone for the suggestions and information.