In your uninformed opinion. Pot meet kettle. Given the frequency with which you engage in ad hominem attacks (quite a few of your past posts seem to involve that behavior), you are hardly one to say anything about that. I'd also imagine that many here are already aware of the advantages offered by milled receivers: forged, milled receivers offer both increased rigidity and strength as well as greater accuracy. Their greater mass of the milled reciever attenuates recoil better than a slightly lighter (about a pound) system. You can make all the unsubstantiated claims about forged/milled receivers that you want, but those allegations positively fly in the face of reality: Milled/forged receivers command a premium in the market place for many reasons. Those reasons: People trust a milled forging more than they do a stamped and riveted sheet metal reciever. Rivets can and do serve as a stress/shear point once the receiver wears and loosens under stress or if they are set improperly; the sheet metal stamping can and does warp under high heat (extended firing) and sheet steel will never, ever be as durable or as strong as a milled steel forging. The small difference is mass between the stamped and milled receivers (7.25 pounds vs. 8.30 pounds or an ounce over a pound) mitigates recoil better and is hardly an issue except perhaps for those who are miserably out of shape and given that many folks affix all manner of unnecessary "tacticool" stuff to their guns these days, the point you've made is moot at best. Those who claim that a stamped sheet steel receiver is the equal of a milled forged receiver are fooling no one except themselves and are likely doing so simply because they cannot locate and/or afford one. That's called rationalization.