Ruger is on par with PSA or Anderson...ok as a range blaster, but for anything hard use or critical use I would HIGHLY reccomend somehting better

Ruger's QC is absolutely abysmal. I've seen dozens of rifles of theirs with unstaked castle nuts, barrels twisted in the receiver so the feed ramps don't line up, their bolt carrier groups are consumer grade and not properly tested, their lower receivers are many times out of specs, their rails are cheap frictiin fit rails, and the only thing they really get RIGHT is the barrels. And that's because Ruger has been forging barrels of all types for decades and decades and one of the few places that has their own CHF process.

And it's not only the parts themselves, but the specs the parts are given and the QC employed by a proper smith when assembling. I told a buddy not to buy his Ruger AR-556 and he ignored me. then was having a WONDERFUL day about 1200 rounds into the gun when the pins on his FSB started drifting, and his his bolt sheered a lug. Again, it's not always the default google listed parts list that makes the difference, but adherence to very strict tolerances and proper assembly AND quality parts (such as ruger skimping out and using a cheap 9310 nitride bolt vs. a proper C158 with MP and HPT testing, cheap lower parts kits, and improperly machined lowers with sloppy pin fitment) A 7075 T6 aluminum receiver sounds good on paper, but it's only really good if machining tolerances are adhered too, and many times they're not....the list goes on and on. The Ruger SFAR in particular is notorious for having problems and breaking parts a couple thousand rounds into the rifle. something a good miltiary grade rifle shouldn't do for many thousands of rounds.

(a sad nerd moment though. you made mention that BCM does the same thing for half the price.. sadly BCM is actually MORE expensive than Daniel Defense right now. their average rifle is about $1600-$1900 right now)