I just put together two rifles, one with a RRA upper, bolt, carrier, and charging handle; the other rifle had BM parts. As far as the uppers and charging handles, they looked the same. The BM seemed to have better finish on the bolt and carrier. More like the mil-spec finish. Function seems to be equal.
I had a tuffer time getting the barrel on the RRA upper. Whereas the barrel just slid into the BM, I had to really force it on with the RRA. I am not sure whether that was good or bad (tighter tolerances or slightly out of spec?).
ARMS stuff works well on either rail.
Bushmaster uppers have the mil-spec dry lube. I don't think anybody else does that.
The BM parts were about $90 more expensive, and I don't really think they were $90 better. But if you really want a rifle "very close to mil-specs," BM is the way to go.
It is true that BM uses a harder steel in the barrels, but even a non-chrome lined barrel will last more than most guys will ever shoot their rifle. I don't think that is a biggy. RRA does chrome line some of their barrels now.