Ruger SFAR

[1168]

Interesting, as their website curiously doesn't say anything about a coating on the BCG, just the nitrided barrel.

The carrier looked more normal, other than all the extra holes. Just the bolt had that golden look.

[Disciple]

Do you agree or disagree with this observation?

So I handled a Ruger SFAR in person. While it was lightweight, it felt cheap. Receivers were good and tight, rail was dainty, gas block was not centered (a common complaint). Receiver extension and plastic spacer felt low cost. It would need upgrades in those, some areas, IMO, to be where I wanted it to be.

[Vgex2]

There's no law saying you can't address some of the issues if you want to take advantage of the very low starting weight. It is still quite customizable considering there are some proprietary parts. See Hop's video if you like:

[CRT2]

Do you agree or disagree with this observation?

I can not speak to the 16” but my 20” feels similar to my DD M4 V5.

[Bret]

I handled one a few days ago at a local gun store when someone was buying it. As everyone says, it's incredibly light. I went home and ordered the 16" version. I'm crossing my fingers that it turns out to be a winner.

[Disciple]

I wonder if they will release a 6.5 Creedmoor.

[1168]

Do you agree or disagree with this observation?

I didn’t look at it very closely. I only noticed the bolt because I cleared it, then did a few presentations from high and low ready. The handguard is definitely skinny. I’d ditch that on day one if I bought one.

[Disciple]

The handguard is definitely skinny. I’d ditch that on day one if I bought one.

Does it use a standard diameter barrel nut?

[CRT2]

Does it use a standard diameter barrel nut?

From research I’ve done, yes. However, if changing hand guards, have to be concerned about the gas block.

[Bret]

I picked mine up a couple of days ago and am very pleased with what I see so far. It didn't come with backup sights, so I added them for the test firing. I'm thinking about adding some sort of low powered optic.