I guess bottom line is what you can afford and what's important in a rifle, for you. If they would produce parts that are superior to USGI (like smith enterprises) using better technology and materials then it wouldn't be an issue. Also, USGI parts have been known to break and wear down (that's why there are spares) but the underlying factors of materials and specifications that are not adhered to by SA inc override that, for me at least.
I AM saying that if I'm going to use a rifle, I'm going to use it as it was intended to be, with in spec parts.
I'm not saying that a rifle completely built by them won't work for a lifetime and be problem free. If the receiver isn't in spec, why would they make the other repro parts any better? With that said, it's known that the SA inc receivers are NOT in spec, either dimensionally or materially. whole lots of parts were scrapped if only a few didn't meet spec. If they SA inc parts were so good, why do people send them back for GI parts replacements after those parts break? Why are the early models with GI parts so sought after? It's a fact that USGI parts were made by many different companies under contract, but it's also a fact that the quality control standards were much higher than a company like springfield inc are able to afford. Without thread crapping, I'd like to add that a rifle should never have to be sent back for repairs. I'd rather have new parts than some parts hammered out in a factory by the lowest bidder, back in 1960. If anything ever breaks send it in, and they WILL make it right. I have over 4000 rounds through it, and it is very recent production. Same with every other one I have been in contact with. SA makes AMAZING rifles, the only thing that mine ever broke is the bank. Don't buy into the whole, "SA parts are crap" line.