Noveske NST Match or Recon Match what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

Answer 1

Just a personal selection of features and options. If I remember correctly, the Recon has a stainless steel barrel (which nobody operating in the tactical who knew what they were doing would ever use, due to the brightness). The NST models are based on rifles built to the preferences of the Noveske Shooting Team.

Noveske makes a fine rifle, but, as with any other high end AR manufacturer, you pay for a lot of stuff you don't really need, but which the purists with little to no actual credentials in the field insist you absolutely must have, such as..

• 1 in 7.3 pitch. They insist you need this because the military uses it. The military went with 1 in 7.3 not because it's ideal for any particular round, but because it gives the same flight characteristics to the 62 grain ball round and 64 grain tracer round. 1 in 9 is actually the ideal pitch for the 62 grain M855/SS109 NATO cartridge, and is also recommended by Hornady for use with their 75 grain TAP cartridges. When the Army acquired the 77 grain Mk 262 cartridge for their designated marksmen, they found that a 1 in 8 pitch was ideal for that cartridge.
• Chrome lining. Over the course of thousands of rounds, or if you're going to be putting down mass quantities of rounds in full auto, there will be some benefit to this. Otherwise, there is none. Chrome lining actually impedes accuracy, in part due to imperfections in the lining and also because it's put on after the barrel is bored out to the proportions for the cartridge it fires. Also, many manufacturers claim their chrome-lined barrels to be mil-spec - don't fall for this. They do not know what the mil specs are. Thus, you have many manufacturers who put on a cheap chrome lining which will eventually flake off and further impede the accuracy of your rifle. Personally, unless you're firing in FA, I'd recommend a non-lined barrel with Micro Slick treatment from Amelon Firearms.
• M4 feed ramps. Not such a big deal now, since even lower end manufacturers are offering them. If your rifle is a duty weapon, there might be a cause to have concern over these, although even then it may be overstated. They're simply extended feed ramps cut into the barrel and upper receiver. The M16, M16A1, and M16A2 didn't have them, and international variations of the M16 still don't. Many lower end "Mforgeries" didn't have them, as well, and there was no problem with them. You can do fine with M4 feed ramps on the barrel and receiver. You can do fine with M4 feed ramps on the barrel but not on the receiver. You can do fine without M4 feed ramps on either the barrel or receiver. M4 feed ramps on the receiver but not on the barrel is the combination you'd want to avoid, however - it leaves the possibility of a cartridge being cycled getting caught on the lip of the barrel.
• Gas key staking. Many insist that gas keys must be staked the way the military does it. I have yet to meet anyone who didn't have the gas key on the bolt carrier staked that way who has had a problem with it coming off. Although it doesn't hurt, and if you wanted it done, it shouldn't be very expensive to do.
• "F" marked front sight base. If you have an "Mforgery" with the short handguards, there is some legitimacy to this - the standard M16 FSB doesn't rise up high enough to compensate for the shorter sight picture. This can be rectified easily with the extended front sight post offered by Bushmaster.

They also insist that anything which isn't Colt or Noveske is junk. Which always puts a smile on my face when I outshoot them with my AR I built myself, using a Double Star lower, FN upper, bolt carrier without the "properly" staked gas key, and 1 in 9 non chrome lined barrel (although I do have the M4 feed ramps).

For what you'd pay for a Noveske, you can build yourself a better rifle.