Very few civilian shooters actually need a Les Baer, Wilson Combat or Noveske (etc.) AR. But if they've got the funds, sure, why not?
Very few shooters of any persuasion need one of those brands. The Noveske is noted for durable, high quality barrels and the Wilson and Les Baer are known for being very accurate.
The Noveske is geared toward an operator type with a healthy budget. Other than their switchblocks, they don't bring anything really special to the table. They are very high quality but they are no more reliable than any of the other quality brands out there.
Likewise with the Wilson and LB. Those are mostly geared toward precision shooters with high quality barrels and the focus being on accuracy. Nothing magical about them either.
Colt gets tons of reverence since they hold the DOD M4 contract. That contract has zero to do with their civilian weapons so I don't see what the big deal is. They sell almost entirely on their name and rep in the military market.
Stag is the "house brand" of Continental Machine and Tool who, as mentioned previously, is a sub-contractor for some of the military and government contracts on true mil-spec rifles. Nothing special. Parts are dimensionally in spec. That's all that matters. Some of their rifles and uppers lack M4 feed ramps and some people make a big deal about that. I've got a carbine length upper without them and since my lower lacks the 3rd position on the fire selector, it really isn't a big deal. Have yet to see a reliability issue as a result.
Daniel Defense also gets a lot of praise. I've got various DD parts sprinkled through my various rifles and again, nothing special. I bought them because they were affordable, of acceptable quality and available.
Real world performance and reliability between the various reputable brands out there is marginal. Too many people place too much emphasis on certain nitnoid details that don't matter to reliability and won't have any effect on long term durability with full-auto firing out of the equation. Way too many people point to the "chart" as the gospel of quality but the reality is that most of the columns on that chart have no bearing on the function, durability or reliability of the weapon. In a similar fashion the "chart" is simply a "yes/no" list of features in common with a M4. It is possible, and even common, for something for a particular brand or model to fall in the "no" category but only because it uses a superior coating, material, finish, etc...
I'm not saying that there is no differences between the brands, but in most cases it comes down to quality control of the assembly process and customer/warranty service. Some brands focus their efforts on parts that actually matter to the function of the weapon for its target market and use less expensive options where permissible to meet a price point while still producing a reliable weapon.
Do your research. Figure out what you want/need the rifle to do and how you will likely be using it. Make your purchase decision based on what meets your needs, not what some chart claims is required.
I've heard good things about the S&W as well
