I also really like the M&P 15 Magpul Middy, then again I pitched it to them almost two years ago. ;-)
C4
Need some AR advice
- Thread starter tomtom2245
- Start date
I also really like the M&P 15 Magpul Middy, then again I pitched it to them almost two years ago. ;-)
C4
1.Sure can. Many Civy's look at barrel steel and say; "I'm not going to shoot FA so what does it matter?" This is a good question, but the reason why I like the better steel (specifically CMV) is because when I see 4140 used, that is usually a red flag to me that the gun is over gassed and could possibly have an out of spec chamber (more .223 and less 5.56 NATO). So in this case, I am right. This is also a cost cutting measure.
2.I think S&W batch test MPI's, but no HPT. This is about worthless IMHO. FA carriers are heavier than SA so I simply prefer the heavier carrier.
5.Cost cutting and weakness. As someone that has had to mortar a round, you want a strong RE!
6.One of the biggest lies told to the consumer is that the 1/7 twist cannot shoot 55gr ammo. This is pure BS. I ONLY run 1/7 twist barrels and for the most part ONLY shoot 55gr ammo. The 1/7 twist rate allows you to really extend the lethal range of the AR by shooting 77gr ammo. Also, much like the barrel steel quality, when I see 1/9 twist rates, I am immediately concerned about an out of spec chamber and over gassed barrel.
First let me say that you should choose the AR that BEST fits YOUR needs and wants. So you might want one for general plinking and hunting. Max rounds you shoot in a year is 500rds. You also do not attend any training with said AR and it would not be the first gun you grab in a life or death situation. So in your instance, you aren't concerned with many of the aspects of a fighting gun and the TDP has little value for you. I understand this and would say go with what you like.
I on the other hand will shoot 5,000rds a year, attend 2-3 carbine schools and bet my life on my AR. So in this respect, I don't want ANY corners cut in order to save a dollar as my life is worth more than a cheap AR (YMMV).
C4
If I was running a S&W AR, I would be running an H2 buffer (FYI).
I like 1/8 twist and my varmint AR has it.
C4
Parts list:
Upper
Noveske/VLTUR MUR
BCM 16" SS barrel
Noveske 13" NSR Rail
G&R Tactical BCG
BCM GunFighter CH (MOD 4)
KAC 300M BUIS
Magpul MBUS 2 Front
SureFire FH 212A
SYRAC Defense Adjustable GB
Lower
Lancer (forged) lower
G&R Tactical LPK
Geissele SD-C
LMT Receiver Extension
LMT Castle Nut
G&R Tactical H buffer
Tactical Spring Co buffer spring (blue)
Magpul MOE Plus Grip
LMT SOPMOD
Novese QD Receiver plate
C4
The Colt civilian AR and military models are all based upon the original Stoner AR-10 semi-auto platform. The Stoner was not mil-spec, could not have been, because at the time the Stoner AR was originally developed there was no firm mil-spec for the military platform that would eventually become the M-16. Even though the Stoner AR was used as the basis for the Colt weapon it was Armalite that developed the basic AR platform in the 1950's, Armalite sold their rights for the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt in 1959. This is where the "AR" comes from in "AR-15", it stands for "ArmaLite Rifle". Neither the Armalite or the Stoner were "mil-spec". The Stoner AR-15 derived from the 7.62 mm AR-10 designed by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and James Sullivan of ArmaLite corporation. The AR-15 was developed as a lighter 5.56 mm version of the AR-10. ArmaLite also developed the AR-1, AR-5, some models in their AR series were bolt action rifles, their AR-7 was a semi-auto survival rifle. All Colt AR's are technically clones (a distinction often ignored by Colt fans) because they are based upon a design which originally belonged to someone else. Other AR manufacturers make AR clones marketed generally with separate designations such as the S&W M&P15, all of these other manufacturers clones are generically refered to commonly in a weapon class type sense as "AR-15" or just "AR".
In the early 1980s Colt designed a prototype compact version of the M16 which the military eventaully designated as the "M4". In the 1990s Colt trademarked and patented the term "M4" and further developed weapon that evolved into todays M4. The military designates new models of various pieces of equipment with the "M" designation for model, with each new version getting the next sequential number.
The name "AR-15" and "M4" belong to Colt, AR-15 refers only to the Colt semi-auto rifle and the M4 refers to the military M4. Colt insists the terms should only be used to refer to their products and theirs alone, and has used this in lawsuit claiming illegal use of "look and feel" and misuse or illegal use of their trademarks. Thus no other manufacturer has been permitted to use these terms or a "look and feel" of a Colt AR or similar function/operating specifications of a Colt AR version including military versions. This has led to other manufacturers weapons being different in aspects to avoid legal issues with Colt. Most notable of lawsuits is the Colt lawsuit against Bushmaster and Heckler & Koch when both tried to address the civlian and military market and tried to compare their own firearms to Colt. This lawsuit has had the effect of supressing competition from other manufacturers for the military and civilian markets. The effect has allowed Colt to maintain their contract for supply of military weapons and make claims and broad suggestion for their weapons in both the civilian and military markets in such a manner as to allow it to be infered other manufacturers weapons are inferior even if they may be of quality and other aspects equal to, or better than, a Colt weapon.
Colt uses their own technical data packages (TDP) for their products. Their TDP consist of the designs, specifications, patents, trade secrets, manufacturing processes, know how and other intellectual property. The Colt TDP is a closely guarded secret that is not available to other manufacturers. Basically, the Colt TDP contains information used to produce the military weapon, another TDP may contain information needed to produce civilian available AR weapons, and another TDP may contain information needed to produce Law Enforcement models. Other manufacturers also have their own "TDPs" (although it may not be called a TDP) for their own weapons. TDP's change as needed, sometimes frequently, and are considered living documents. Contrary to popular belief Colt does not own the rights to mil-spec specifications and any manufacturer is free to produce and market a weapon based upon mil-spec. Other manufacturers may also make a mil-spec civilian available AR and simply not advertise it as such, an example is the S&W M&P15OR which is produced as a mil-spec weapon but its not advertised as such. The myth that there is no such thing as a civilian available mil-spec AR or that Colt is the only one that can make a mil-spec AR is not true.
As an example of marketing tactics for civilan available models used by Colt; When Colt applies the term "M4" to a civilan available rifle, for example "Sporter M4 Carbine", it does not mean the rifle is an M4 Carbine in a civilian version. The term "M4" or "M4 Carbine" for Colt civilian available rifles refers to the Colt "look and feel" style of their brand. M4 is part of a brand name type for Colt, M4 for the military rifle is a military designation for a model/version of weapon. It just so happens they are both the same term so it appears synonymous between the two even though the Colt civilian available AR model and military terms use are not synonymous. It does not mean a person is getting a military rifle with just the auto related stuff removed in a civilian version. This is one of many marketing tactics used by Colt related to their overall marketing based upon their military contract history and allows the public to infer they are getting an original mil-spec military model in a civilian version by careful application of the term 'M4' in the name, advertising, or marketing for civilian available models.
Stoner had the rifle that was closest to what the military had started looking for in the late 1950s, mainly a lighter version of a 7.62 weapon that used a smaller less expensive caliber, accurate, high velocity round and Stoner had that in their lighter version of their AR-10. The lighter version of the AR-10 was called "AR-15", this makes all Colt AR's and their military weapon models derived from the original Stoner AR-10. Colt was looking for a market for its newly purchased AR-15 firearms rights, they turned to the far east market first and the first ever commercial sale of Colt AR-15s was made to Malaysia in September 1959. The Malaysian contract was filled using the very first Colt marketed AR-15s ever manufactured in December 1959, the first quanity produced was 300. Colt then marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world, including the U.S. military. The original AR-15 was a very lightweight weapon, weighing less than 6 pounds with empty magazine, later a heavy-barrel version of the civilian AR-15 appeared that weighed around 8.5 lbs. Although the Colt AR-15 based models are firearms made in the U.S. the Colt AR-15 was not first marketed in the U.S. as some believe and was first marketed in Malaysia.
The Colt AR-15 was eventually adopted by the U.S. military under the designation M16. Colt continued to use the AR-15 trademark for its semi-automatic variants (AR-15, AR-15A2) which were marketed to civilian and law enforcement consumers. Colt used the Stoner AR-15 platform, derived from the Stoner AR-10 platform, in the 1960's and made changes to satisfy the need for a U.S. military rifle and got the contract because at the time they were the only company that had tooled specifically for the "developing mil-spec" for the new military rifle to be known eventually as the M-16, they were already tooled up for manufacturing because they had produced the AR-15 for the Malaysian contract in 1959, and they were willing to devote the main focus of their manufacturing infrastructure to the military platform. It was not until after Colt got the military M-16 contract that the mil-spec for the platform was firmed up and developed further. The only reason Colt remained the supplier for the military platform is because Colt was willing and able at the time to make the main focus of their manufacturing infrastructure the military models and have continued to do that to this day but this has been challenged by other manufacturers willing to do the same thing.
It is often said that some Colt semi-auto law enforcement models use the same parts as the military M4 version (except for the auto capability related parts) and there is only one set of parts used. Although it is true that semi-auto civilian and law enforcement versions are manufactured in the same general manufacturing infrastructure as the military version, it is not true that only one set of parts are used.
When we began the replacement of all of our Colts we had to decide between either complete replacement or refurbish back to factory condition. It would cost us almost as much to refurbish than a LGS was willing to supply on contract a new M&P15 OR. It would cost us more to replace the Colts with new Colts straight from the factory than it would cost us for a new M&P 15 OR from an LGS on contract.
In several thousand rounds a month over the last year since we began our replacement we have found no difference between the Colt and the S&W M&P15 OR for function, dependability, or accuracy.
Although Colt is a fine weapon, and I used and tested them for many years, its reputation as some sort of "Gold Standard" for AR's is based more upon advertising, marketing, supression of competition, and a combat weapon platform contract supply reputation than reality in todays world because there are manufacturers that also produce AR's that are equal to, or better quality than, the Colt. The only difference is a lot of these others came late to the contract party and have geared their lines more for the civilian market. In other words, if Colt had not gotten the original contract for military supply, there would be another manufacturers weapon being called the "Gold Standard"
In the early 1980s Colt designed a prototype compact version of the M16 which the military eventaully designated as the "M4". In the 1990s Colt trademarked and patented the term "M4" and further developed weapon that evolved into todays M4. The military designates new models of various pieces of equipment with the "M" designation for model, with each new version getting the next sequential number.
The name "AR-15" and "M4" belong to Colt, AR-15 refers only to the Colt semi-auto rifle and the M4 refers to the military M4. Colt insists the terms should only be used to refer to their products and theirs alone, and has used this in lawsuit claiming illegal use of "look and feel" and misuse or illegal use of their trademarks. Thus no other manufacturer has been permitted to use these terms or a "look and feel" of a Colt AR or similar function/operating specifications of a Colt AR version including military versions. This has led to other manufacturers weapons being different in aspects to avoid legal issues with Colt. Most notable of lawsuits is the Colt lawsuit against Bushmaster and Heckler & Koch when both tried to address the civlian and military market and tried to compare their own firearms to Colt. This lawsuit has had the effect of supressing competition from other manufacturers for the military and civilian markets. The effect has allowed Colt to maintain their contract for supply of military weapons and make claims and broad suggestion for their weapons in both the civilian and military markets in such a manner as to allow it to be infered other manufacturers weapons are inferior even if they may be of quality and other aspects equal to, or better than, a Colt weapon.
Colt uses their own technical data packages (TDP) for their products. Their TDP consist of the designs, specifications, patents, trade secrets, manufacturing processes, know how and other intellectual property. The Colt TDP is a closely guarded secret that is not available to other manufacturers. Basically, the Colt TDP contains information used to produce the military weapon, another TDP may contain information needed to produce civilian available AR weapons, and another TDP may contain information needed to produce Law Enforcement models. Other manufacturers also have their own "TDPs" (although it may not be called a TDP) for their own weapons. TDP's change as needed, sometimes frequently, and are considered living documents. Contrary to popular belief Colt does not own the rights to mil-spec specifications and any manufacturer is free to produce and market a weapon based upon mil-spec. Other manufacturers may also make a mil-spec civilian available AR and simply not advertise it as such, an example is the S&W M&P15OR which is produced as a mil-spec weapon but its not advertised as such. The myth that there is no such thing as a civilian available mil-spec AR or that Colt is the only one that can make a mil-spec AR is not true.
As an example of marketing tactics for civilan available models used by Colt; When Colt applies the term "M4" to a civilan available rifle, for example "Sporter M4 Carbine", it does not mean the rifle is an M4 Carbine in a civilian version. The term "M4" or "M4 Carbine" for Colt civilian available rifles refers to the Colt "look and feel" style of their brand. M4 is part of a brand name type for Colt, M4 for the military rifle is a military designation for a model/version of weapon. It just so happens they are both the same term so it appears synonymous between the two even though the Colt civilian available AR model and military terms use are not synonymous. It does not mean a person is getting a military rifle with just the auto related stuff removed in a civilian version. This is one of many marketing tactics used by Colt related to their overall marketing based upon their military contract history and allows the public to infer they are getting an original mil-spec military model in a civilian version by careful application of the term 'M4' in the name, advertising, or marketing for civilian available models.
Stoner had the rifle that was closest to what the military had started looking for in the late 1950s, mainly a lighter version of a 7.62 weapon that used a smaller less expensive caliber, accurate, high velocity round and Stoner had that in their lighter version of their AR-10. The lighter version of the AR-10 was called "AR-15", this makes all Colt AR's and their military weapon models derived from the original Stoner AR-10. Colt was looking for a market for its newly purchased AR-15 firearms rights, they turned to the far east market first and the first ever commercial sale of Colt AR-15s was made to Malaysia in September 1959. The Malaysian contract was filled using the very first Colt marketed AR-15s ever manufactured in December 1959, the first quanity produced was 300. Colt then marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world, including the U.S. military. The original AR-15 was a very lightweight weapon, weighing less than 6 pounds with empty magazine, later a heavy-barrel version of the civilian AR-15 appeared that weighed around 8.5 lbs. Although the Colt AR-15 based models are firearms made in the U.S. the Colt AR-15 was not first marketed in the U.S. as some believe and was first marketed in Malaysia.
The Colt AR-15 was eventually adopted by the U.S. military under the designation M16. Colt continued to use the AR-15 trademark for its semi-automatic variants (AR-15, AR-15A2) which were marketed to civilian and law enforcement consumers. Colt used the Stoner AR-15 platform, derived from the Stoner AR-10 platform, in the 1960's and made changes to satisfy the need for a U.S. military rifle and got the contract because at the time they were the only company that had tooled specifically for the "developing mil-spec" for the new military rifle to be known eventually as the M-16, they were already tooled up for manufacturing because they had produced the AR-15 for the Malaysian contract in 1959, and they were willing to devote the main focus of their manufacturing infrastructure to the military platform. It was not until after Colt got the military M-16 contract that the mil-spec for the platform was firmed up and developed further. The only reason Colt remained the supplier for the military platform is because Colt was willing and able at the time to make the main focus of their manufacturing infrastructure the military models and have continued to do that to this day but this has been challenged by other manufacturers willing to do the same thing.
It is often said that some Colt semi-auto law enforcement models use the same parts as the military M4 version (except for the auto capability related parts) and there is only one set of parts used. Although it is true that semi-auto civilian and law enforcement versions are manufactured in the same general manufacturing infrastructure as the military version, it is not true that only one set of parts are used.
When we began the replacement of all of our Colts we had to decide between either complete replacement or refurbish back to factory condition. It would cost us almost as much to refurbish than a LGS was willing to supply on contract a new M&P15 OR. It would cost us more to replace the Colts with new Colts straight from the factory than it would cost us for a new M&P 15 OR from an LGS on contract.
In several thousand rounds a month over the last year since we began our replacement we have found no difference between the Colt and the S&W M&P15 OR for function, dependability, or accuracy.
Although Colt is a fine weapon, and I used and tested them for many years, its reputation as some sort of "Gold Standard" for AR's is based more upon advertising, marketing, supression of competition, and a combat weapon platform contract supply reputation than reality in todays world because there are manufacturers that also produce AR's that are equal to, or better quality than, the Colt. The only difference is a lot of these others came late to the contract party and have geared their lines more for the civilian market. In other words, if Colt had not gotten the original contract for military supply, there would be another manufacturers weapon being called the "Gold Standard"
Last edited:
Stebo
Member
My apologies to the forum for bringing back this thread on Colt superiority. It's been fairly well beaten. I promise this is my last.
C4,
You have convinced me!.... You've convinced me that if Uncle Sam ever places a full auto rifle with grenade launcher in my tired hands and sends me off to Afghanistan, I want it to be a Colt. Since that's never going to happen, not so much
This portion of the thread began as a discussion on the question of Colt superiority, not to S&W, but the AR population in general. You have successfully turned this into a Colt vs S&W, and in the end a significant trashing of the S&W brand. BTW, I'm certain that everyone here will admit to Colt quality, most everyone would be happy to have one given to them. Buying one is another question.
Do you regret posting that S&W has "no set standards to follow" and "... lack of QA/QC procedures. They don't have anybody that knows what they are looking for"? This is a 160 year old, very successful and admired brand in the weapons industry. If a company makes toilet paper, toasters, tires, or AR's, they WILL have standards and QA/QC. If they "don't have anybody that knows what they are looking for", that company most certainly won't be around for very long.
I call foul on the H&K comment. I pointed out that the Seal Team 6 member carried an H&K 416 on that raid, which was also his "primary weapon" used daily. He had M4's, but they were not his first choice. The H&K is NOT manufactured under the Colt TDP. You dismiss this as OK because the H&K is more expensive. You also dismiss the S&W Sport as not OK because it's not less expensive enough. It's all about the Colt TDP, or it's not.
I previously asked you for data to back up the Colt superior claim. My life's work has always been results oriented. Yes, if object A is claimed to be superior, I need to know what object A will do for me that object B does not. Given that full auto rifles with grenade launch capability will never be a reality in my life, I still see nothing that the Colt 6920 will do for me that a variety of other manufactured rifles will not. Still waiting to see a study demonstrating that a 6920 shoots straighter, farther, faster, lasts longer, never fails.... I don't give a hoot if it has kryptonite lined barrels and chrome balls hanging from the trigger guard, if it doesn't do it better, what's the point?
I admire your rifle photos. What's interesting to me in regard to this discussion is – I see no Colt parts.
Twist rate – I really don't have a clue on the 1/7 vs 1/8 vs 1/9 twist rate. As I've stated, I am a relative newbie. However, from the chart presented on this forum, it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference one way or the other for the average shooter. I do know that a 1/9 barrel will accurately shoot 50 – 69 gr ammo, which is what the great majority will be shooting. You state your opinion, no evidence presented, that when you see 1/9 you are "immediately concerned about an out of spec chamber and over gassed barrel". Where does that come from (facts please)?
No MPI/HPT – You subsequently changed your statement, after someone else corrected you, to say that S&W does batch testing for MPI. Here is where gov't requirements with taxpayer money vs a consumer oriented company selling in a competitive market meets reality. I fully understand why the Army requires 100%, but batch testing is a common practice on a manufacturing line when the line has control of it's processes. You see this fact as a greedy company stuffing dollars in it's pocket. I see this as a reality of the marketplace, a way to produce a quality product for the consumer at a lower price while keeping the company competitive and employees working. And BTW, MPI/HPT testing does NOT impart any quality into a product. The quality is already built in.
Mil-spec and Colt's TDP – There can be an advantage to not religiously following mil-spec. Specifically, I'm referring to a melonite 1/8 5R barrel. Try finding that in the Colt TDP. You see this as a simple cost saving step by S&W. Try convincing Sport owners that this is an inferior approach to barrel manufacturing. Choice is good.
Doing some searching, I was surprised to read that the Army placed an order for 24,000 M4A1 from Remington at $673 per copy. The previous Colt M4A1 buy was priced at $1221 per. Of course, the rifles will be manufactured using Colt's proprietary TDP. Another surprise - nearly 10 manufacturers have produced AR platform rifles over the past 50 years. One of them was Bushmaster, which should make a Colt fanboy even more ill than an S&W.
Anyway, I thank you for the discussion, information you have provided, and pushing me to do some thinking and my own research.
Cheers!
C4,
You have convinced me!.... You've convinced me that if Uncle Sam ever places a full auto rifle with grenade launcher in my tired hands and sends me off to Afghanistan, I want it to be a Colt. Since that's never going to happen, not so much
This portion of the thread began as a discussion on the question of Colt superiority, not to S&W, but the AR population in general. You have successfully turned this into a Colt vs S&W, and in the end a significant trashing of the S&W brand. BTW, I'm certain that everyone here will admit to Colt quality, most everyone would be happy to have one given to them. Buying one is another question.
Do you regret posting that S&W has "no set standards to follow" and "... lack of QA/QC procedures. They don't have anybody that knows what they are looking for"? This is a 160 year old, very successful and admired brand in the weapons industry. If a company makes toilet paper, toasters, tires, or AR's, they WILL have standards and QA/QC. If they "don't have anybody that knows what they are looking for", that company most certainly won't be around for very long.
I call foul on the H&K comment. I pointed out that the Seal Team 6 member carried an H&K 416 on that raid, which was also his "primary weapon" used daily. He had M4's, but they were not his first choice. The H&K is NOT manufactured under the Colt TDP. You dismiss this as OK because the H&K is more expensive. You also dismiss the S&W Sport as not OK because it's not less expensive enough. It's all about the Colt TDP, or it's not.
I previously asked you for data to back up the Colt superior claim. My life's work has always been results oriented. Yes, if object A is claimed to be superior, I need to know what object A will do for me that object B does not. Given that full auto rifles with grenade launch capability will never be a reality in my life, I still see nothing that the Colt 6920 will do for me that a variety of other manufactured rifles will not. Still waiting to see a study demonstrating that a 6920 shoots straighter, farther, faster, lasts longer, never fails.... I don't give a hoot if it has kryptonite lined barrels and chrome balls hanging from the trigger guard, if it doesn't do it better, what's the point?
I admire your rifle photos. What's interesting to me in regard to this discussion is – I see no Colt parts.
Twist rate – I really don't have a clue on the 1/7 vs 1/8 vs 1/9 twist rate. As I've stated, I am a relative newbie. However, from the chart presented on this forum, it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference one way or the other for the average shooter. I do know that a 1/9 barrel will accurately shoot 50 – 69 gr ammo, which is what the great majority will be shooting. You state your opinion, no evidence presented, that when you see 1/9 you are "immediately concerned about an out of spec chamber and over gassed barrel". Where does that come from (facts please)?
No MPI/HPT – You subsequently changed your statement, after someone else corrected you, to say that S&W does batch testing for MPI. Here is where gov't requirements with taxpayer money vs a consumer oriented company selling in a competitive market meets reality. I fully understand why the Army requires 100%, but batch testing is a common practice on a manufacturing line when the line has control of it's processes. You see this fact as a greedy company stuffing dollars in it's pocket. I see this as a reality of the marketplace, a way to produce a quality product for the consumer at a lower price while keeping the company competitive and employees working. And BTW, MPI/HPT testing does NOT impart any quality into a product. The quality is already built in.
Mil-spec and Colt's TDP – There can be an advantage to not religiously following mil-spec. Specifically, I'm referring to a melonite 1/8 5R barrel. Try finding that in the Colt TDP. You see this as a simple cost saving step by S&W. Try convincing Sport owners that this is an inferior approach to barrel manufacturing. Choice is good.
Doing some searching, I was surprised to read that the Army placed an order for 24,000 M4A1 from Remington at $673 per copy. The previous Colt M4A1 buy was priced at $1221 per. Of course, the rifles will be manufactured using Colt's proprietary TDP. Another surprise - nearly 10 manufacturers have produced AR platform rifles over the past 50 years. One of them was Bushmaster, which should make a Colt fanboy even more ill than an S&W.
Anyway, I thank you for the discussion, information you have provided, and pushing me to do some thinking and my own research.
Cheers!
Last edited:
This is interesting. I do not agree with it (as I have friends inside of Colt that basically tell me everything they do and don't do).
There are of course differences between an M4 issued to the Govt and say a 6920, but the differences don't have anything to do with the quality of the gun, more to do with the capability (like FA fire).
If you would like to further discuss this, please PM me and we can continue this discussion further.
C4
Well, its even reflected in their advertisement and marketing:
Colt Rifles - states:
"Colt rifle customers want the genuine article. They know that the story of today's Colt commercial and sporting rifles began with the Stoner AR-15® design that Colt transformed into a military-grade rifle -- the Colt M16 automatic rifle. First deployed in the early days of the Vietnam War, the M16 followed in the footsteps of its Colt ancestors, establishing the quality, reliability and performance benchmarks by which all tactical military rifles have since been measured.
Nearly half a century has elapsed since the United States Government first fielded the Colt M16. Since that time Colt has never surrendered its position as manufacturer of the world's preeminent combat rifles. During the War on Terror that followed September 11, 2001, American troops have increasingly been outfitted with the Colt M4 carbine, successor to the Colt M16 and proud bearer of the American and Colt military tradition.
Colt's rifles are the only rifles available to sportsmen, hunters and other shooters that are manufactured in the Colt factory and based on the same military standards and specifications as the United States issue Colt M16 rifle and M4 carbine. Colt customers want the best, and none of Colt's competitors can match the quality, reliability, accuracy and performance built into every Colt rifle."
1. The only way to get the genuine article is to get the same military model supplied to the military. How many here can go out and buy the same military model, raise your hands. So no, regardless if civilain customers want the genuine article, they still can't get it (at least not legally).
2. Their manufacturing, marketing, and advertisement in relation to mil spec only applies to their military line > "establishing the quality, reliability and performance benchmarks by which all tactical military rifles have since been measured."
3. "American troops have increasingly been outfitted with the Colt M4 carbine" > and thats because Colt has the contract. If another manufacturer had the contract they could claim the same thing.
4. "Colt's rifles are the only rifles available to sportsmen, hunters and other shooters that are manufactured in the Colt factory and based on the same military standards and specifications as the United States issue Colt M16 rifle and M4 carbine." , based upon because of the reasons I previously outlined a few posts back, "based upon" and "being" are two different things. So yes they can legally strongly suggest their civilian lines are mil-spec by using such wording without them actually being mil-spec. And of course a Colt fire arm is the "only rifles available to sportsmen, hunters and other shooters that are manufactured in the Colt factory" because...wait for it...well, its a Colt, Duh!.
5. Colt cites quality as a difference, and they do have a quality firearm but other manufacturers also have a quality firearm as well.
So like I said, if Colt had not gotten the original contract for military supply, there would be another manufacturers weapon being called the "Gold Standard". Thats because if Colt had not gotten the original contract they would have had nothing to capitalize upon for advertising and marketing, and its that contract that gave them a monetary advantage so they could aford to pour more into further advertising and marketing earlier to establish a foothold in the civilian market which is why they became entrenched in the law enforcement community for a long time along with their seemingly never ending contracts to law enforcement agencies that locks them in to the Colt brand. If another manufacturer had gotten the contract they would have been doing the same thing Colt has done, advertise and market based upon what they did for the government contract.
Don't get me wrong. Colt is a fine weapon, I used and tested Colt platforms over many years and am intimately familiar with them, they have a fine weapon to be proud of. I'm not saying that Colt does not have certain standards. However, the comparison of Colt as a "Gold Standard" to the disparagement of other manufacturers is somewhat unfair and incorrect. If the other manufacturers had the same contract advantage as Colt has had the other manufacturer product would be called the "Gold Standard". There are other manufacturers that produce weapons that are of the same quality as the Colt.
If we were discussing that the civilian models do not have automatic fire, it would be different, but thats not what we are discussing. Of course the civilian models do not have automatic fire, its a moot point mostly. We have some weapons that do have automatic fire, actually three round burst, and even those are not Colts any longer. What we are discussing is the comparability of Colt to S&W, and in this forum in terms of the civilain platform owner. In the long run there is simply no differences between the Colt and the S&W other than specific wants or desires for civilian use, as they both put a round down range within the same accuracy range as the M-4 platform was intended to do in the same manner using the same functionality with comparable quality within their repspective scope. It then becomes a matter of preference or favoritism of one over the other, based, basically for most people, upon price - $1200.00 or more for a Colt, or $1000.00 or less for the S&W to do the same thing for the civilain owner.
Colt Rifles - states:
"Colt rifle customers want the genuine article. They know that the story of today's Colt commercial and sporting rifles began with the Stoner AR-15® design that Colt transformed into a military-grade rifle -- the Colt M16 automatic rifle. First deployed in the early days of the Vietnam War, the M16 followed in the footsteps of its Colt ancestors, establishing the quality, reliability and performance benchmarks by which all tactical military rifles have since been measured.
Nearly half a century has elapsed since the United States Government first fielded the Colt M16. Since that time Colt has never surrendered its position as manufacturer of the world's preeminent combat rifles. During the War on Terror that followed September 11, 2001, American troops have increasingly been outfitted with the Colt M4 carbine, successor to the Colt M16 and proud bearer of the American and Colt military tradition.
Colt's rifles are the only rifles available to sportsmen, hunters and other shooters that are manufactured in the Colt factory and based on the same military standards and specifications as the United States issue Colt M16 rifle and M4 carbine. Colt customers want the best, and none of Colt's competitors can match the quality, reliability, accuracy and performance built into every Colt rifle."
1. The only way to get the genuine article is to get the same military model supplied to the military. How many here can go out and buy the same military model, raise your hands. So no, regardless if civilain customers want the genuine article, they still can't get it (at least not legally).
2. Their manufacturing, marketing, and advertisement in relation to mil spec only applies to their military line > "establishing the quality, reliability and performance benchmarks by which all tactical military rifles have since been measured."
3. "American troops have increasingly been outfitted with the Colt M4 carbine" > and thats because Colt has the contract. If another manufacturer had the contract they could claim the same thing.
4. "Colt's rifles are the only rifles available to sportsmen, hunters and other shooters that are manufactured in the Colt factory and based on the same military standards and specifications as the United States issue Colt M16 rifle and M4 carbine." , based upon because of the reasons I previously outlined a few posts back, "based upon" and "being" are two different things. So yes they can legally strongly suggest their civilian lines are mil-spec by using such wording without them actually being mil-spec. And of course a Colt fire arm is the "only rifles available to sportsmen, hunters and other shooters that are manufactured in the Colt factory" because...wait for it...well, its a Colt, Duh!.
5. Colt cites quality as a difference, and they do have a quality firearm but other manufacturers also have a quality firearm as well.
So like I said, if Colt had not gotten the original contract for military supply, there would be another manufacturers weapon being called the "Gold Standard". Thats because if Colt had not gotten the original contract they would have had nothing to capitalize upon for advertising and marketing, and its that contract that gave them a monetary advantage so they could aford to pour more into further advertising and marketing earlier to establish a foothold in the civilian market which is why they became entrenched in the law enforcement community for a long time along with their seemingly never ending contracts to law enforcement agencies that locks them in to the Colt brand. If another manufacturer had gotten the contract they would have been doing the same thing Colt has done, advertise and market based upon what they did for the government contract.
Don't get me wrong. Colt is a fine weapon, I used and tested Colt platforms over many years and am intimately familiar with them, they have a fine weapon to be proud of. I'm not saying that Colt does not have certain standards. However, the comparison of Colt as a "Gold Standard" to the disparagement of other manufacturers is somewhat unfair and incorrect. If the other manufacturers had the same contract advantage as Colt has had the other manufacturer product would be called the "Gold Standard". There are other manufacturers that produce weapons that are of the same quality as the Colt.
If we were discussing that the civilian models do not have automatic fire, it would be different, but thats not what we are discussing. Of course the civilian models do not have automatic fire, its a moot point mostly. We have some weapons that do have automatic fire, actually three round burst, and even those are not Colts any longer. What we are discussing is the comparability of Colt to S&W, and in this forum in terms of the civilain platform owner. In the long run there is simply no differences between the Colt and the S&W other than specific wants or desires for civilian use, as they both put a round down range within the same accuracy range as the M-4 platform was intended to do in the same manner using the same functionality with comparable quality within their repspective scope. It then becomes a matter of preference or favoritism of one over the other, based, basically for most people, upon price - $1200.00 or more for a Colt, or $1000.00 or less for the S&W to do the same thing for the civilain owner.
Last edited:
cyphertext
US Veteran
If the discussion and debate can be civil and respectable, please do not take to PM. I think many of us are interested in learning about the different manufacturing processes the different brands use, and I would like a definitive answer as to if the Colt 6920 really rolls off the same assembly line as the M4, with only a handful of different parts.
Gunslinger808
Member
You gotta admit though Grant, that Colt does have a history of playing games with civillian ARs in regards to the Mil-Spec area.
High shelf lowers, blocks in the low shelfs, the infamous oversized pins including take downs, and semi auto bolt carriers.
BTW, good to see you here instead of at that other site.
High shelf lowers, blocks in the low shelfs, the infamous oversized pins including take downs, and semi auto bolt carriers.
BTW, good to see you here instead of at that other site.
Many people that "KNOW" the truth in the firearms industry (in regards to quality and such) won't say anything. At the end of the day, the truth is the truth and I will always set the record (no matter the manufacturer).
So no, I don't regret telling the truth. If you don't want to hear it, that is 100% on you.
Just so you know, most of the companies that push out AR's these days really don't have a QA/QC process. For the record, I submitted a QC checklist to S&W and offered to do training on the subject. We shall see.
Would you believe that I have spoken to many Tier 1 guys that will tell you that they have ZERO interest in the 416 and much prefer a MK18 or M4 as they found them more reliable. So it is ALWAYS operator preference.
The fact is, I wish that I could get my hands on the 416. I would sell them all day long. Same goes with the SPORT. The SPORT isn't "OK' it is a fantastic AR. As I have said, best AR for the money. It is not a Colt, BCM, DD, KAC or a Noveske though. If you like it and think it is better, that is fine with me.
You have to realize that making things cheaper and not having a set blueprint to follow (standards if you will) will NEVER create a better gun than one that uses more expensive parts, has a plan to follow and better QC/QA.
Not to sound rude, but this is my JOB. It is what I do for a living. So you can either take my word for it or stick your head in the sand.
Correct, no Colt parts in that particular gun. My main training gun utilizes a Colt M4 upper receiver though. I know that this will be hard to believe, but I am not a Colt Fan boy. If anything I am a S&W fanboy (which is what I get accused of on other forums). My problem is that I have to tell the truth and when I see misinformation happening (like in this thread) I have to correct it.
One of my jobs is fixing AR's that won't work. So this means that I see a lot of them. The most common issue we see is out of spec chambers (DPMS, RRA, BM, etc). They say 5.56 NATO on the barrel, but are much closer to a .223 chamber. So I have to ream them in order to get them up and running.
1/9 twist barrels sweet spot is 55gr-62gr. Anything heavier is really a gamble and will be a case by case things in regards to how well it will shoot a group at 100yds. With that said, the problem with 1/9 isn't really the bullet wait or reliability with those weights. The issue is from .223 chambers (or worse) in a 5.56 gun and you get stuck casings, blown primers, etc.
No. Batch testing (if they even do that now) with NO HPT prior is worthless (as it doesn't show you anything).
Correct on not making a product any better. It does however identify bad barrels and bolts and that is important.
You cannot judge an entire weapon or the TDP by ONE PART! Yes, you like the melonited barrel. That is only one aspect of the gun. As good as the SPORT barrel is, it is still over gassed. This means more felt recoil and powder/residue in your chamber. S&W also drills the gas port AFTER they melonite the barrel. This is a mistake as you could have stopped any gas port erosion.
In this latest competition, Colt submitted a bid of well under $800 dollars I believe. Not $1221.
I am glad that you are learning, but you really only know what you read on the errornet. You need to own more AR's, attend rifle schools and work on them. After about 10yrs of this, come back and discuss them with me.
First, Colt (like S&W is run by lawyers). If you look at the S&W page (left side in blue), it says: "Modern Sporting Rifle!" http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category3_750001_750051_757784_-1_Y
This is a common theme these days, but has nothing to do with anything other than making a combat weapon look like a hunting rifle.
A Colt 6920 is $1k (not $1200). Most everyone in the AR industry views Colt as the Gold Standard. BCM, DD, S&W, etc, etc. I can even send you a link to where the owner of BCM states that it is a honor for anyone to even consider their AR's as remotely equal in quality to a Colt 6920. I think you would be shocked to learn that most (if not all) of these companies own a 6920 for reference purposes. If it wasn't the standard in the industry, why would they have them??? Clue.
C4
Not everything I need to say should be visible to the general public (sorry).
I will tell you that Colt only has ONE assembly line. They also only have ONE set of parts. So a Military issued M4 gets the same parts as a 6920 (less the 14.5 barrel and auto sear).
C4
Don't argue that at all. Part of the issue is the State they are located in though and THEIR mandates to Colt (like all the items you just listed).
It is true that for a long time Colt has ignored the Civy consumer. This has now changed.
Thank you for the welcome. I am a S&W Fanboy so this is a good place for me to be!
C4
Gunslinger808
Member
Yeah, I took a tour of the Colt plant back around 2000, it was one of the most interesting tours I've ever been on.
Was up in Avon taking the Simmunition course and out of the Blue one of the instructors asked the class if we'd like to see it.
Only Three of us took him up on it, everone else couldn't wait to get back to the motel and start drinking (typical LEOs
).
Was up in Avon taking the Simmunition course and out of the Blue one of the instructors asked the class if we'd like to see it.
Only Three of us took him up on it, everone else couldn't wait to get back to the motel and start drinking (typical LEOs
).
rtquig
Member
C4,
I have a question about one part of your post earlier on. I've been reading these 2 pages again and again to learn more about AR's in general, own 2 M&P Sports, agree the Colt is still the Gold Standard. Could you explain this statement to me:
"1.Sure can. Many Civy's look at barrel steel and say; "I'm not going to shoot FA so what does it matter?" This is a good question, but the reason why I like the better steel (specifically CMV) is because when I see 4140 used, that is usually a red flag to me that the gun is over gassed and could possibly have an out of spec chamber (more .223 and less 5.56 NATO). So in this case, I am right. This is also a cost cutting measure."
I'll admit I'm over my head in regards to red flag and 4140, I just wonder why 4140 means it is over gassed? Not questioning you, just want to understand and learn more things for future purchases.
I have a question about one part of your post earlier on. I've been reading these 2 pages again and again to learn more about AR's in general, own 2 M&P Sports, agree the Colt is still the Gold Standard. Could you explain this statement to me:
"1.Sure can. Many Civy's look at barrel steel and say; "I'm not going to shoot FA so what does it matter?" This is a good question, but the reason why I like the better steel (specifically CMV) is because when I see 4140 used, that is usually a red flag to me that the gun is over gassed and could possibly have an out of spec chamber (more .223 and less 5.56 NATO). So in this case, I am right. This is also a cost cutting measure."
I'll admit I'm over my head in regards to red flag and 4140, I just wonder why 4140 means it is over gassed? Not questioning you, just want to understand and learn more things for future purchases.
You and several others were just as confused. There is no "red flag". 4140 steel does not mean overgassed or out of spec chambers, or that its possible or likely.
Interesting though, I had 17 Colts here, until this morning, and some of them had out of spec chambers straight from Colt yet the barrel steel is not 4140, so I wonder now what color the "flag" should have been for these but I know it would not be gold. All the parts in these were not the same as the Colt military M-4 models either. We are just about finished with our change over to the M&P15OR for our semi-only weapons (yes with 4140 steel). These 17 Colts were destroyed this morning, cut into several pieces and crushed. All of them were a little less than a year and a half old.
Interesting though, I had 17 Colts here, until this morning, and some of them had out of spec chambers straight from Colt yet the barrel steel is not 4140, so I wonder now what color the "flag" should have been for these but I know it would not be gold. All the parts in these were not the same as the Colt military M-4 models either. We are just about finished with our change over to the M&P15OR for our semi-only weapons (yes with 4140 steel). These 17 Colts were destroyed this morning, cut into several pieces and crushed. All of them were a little less than a year and a half old.
Last edited:
4140 is the cheapest steel used in the AR world. It is a cost cutting measure. So when I see this, two concerns always come to mind (being over gassed and having an out of spec chamber). These concerns are based off of YEARS of experience as a professional armorer and having talked to the best armorers in the business.
Warning! What I am about to say will be taken by some as offensive so please read with an open mind!
RRA/BM/Oly/DPMS/S&W, etc all over gas their AR's because they know their main customer base. Meaning that they know the reason why people buy their AR's (because they are cheap). They also know that they are most likely going to shoot the worst (read under pressured) .223 available (Wolf, Tula, etc). This means that the possibility of short stroking is pretty good and is why they over gas their AR's (as they don't want CS calls complaining that their AR's don't run).
What are the down sides of having an AR that is over gassed? Increased felt recoil which equates to slower follow up shots, more debris in the receiver and on the bolt. More energy transferred to wear parts causing a shorter life.
So since this is a S&W forum and most of you own a S&W AR, I would change out your CAR buffer with an H2 buffer (BCM Buffers at G and R Tactical) and every 3K, make sure to change out your buffer spring (BCM Buffer Springs at G and R Tactical)
C4
It is to professional armorers that work on and repair AR's for a living! I would suggest taking a Dean Caputo AR diagnostics class. He explains all of this in it.
First, Colt makes .223 chambered AR's as well as 5.56 chambered one. So which model were they?
Question for you, how do you know that they were "out of spec?" Which gauge did you use to identify this?
Why would you destroy a Colt AR????
C4
They were 6920's
I don't need to take any class. We have people here who are armorers certified by Colt. We also have people who are H&K and S&W certified armorers. These people have years of professional experience in weapons design, construction, testing, maintenance, repair, gun smithing, manufacturing, and instructing. The one with the least experience has 20 years of experiece, the rest have more. Some of them have actually worked for or contracted with these arms manufacturers at one time or another. A few of them also have a Picitinny Arsenal background where they worked with this platform, and actually helped develop specs for weapons. None of them has ever said or endorsed that 4140 steel is a "red flag" and means over pressure and out of spec chambers. When I asked some of them about this they said some people think that but overall its not true. These are professional armorers, among other aspects, who work on and repair AR's for a living as well. It is not true that 4140 steel means a weapon is over gassed or has an out of spec chamber. 4140 steel is well suited to semi-auto fire of civilian AR's.
We know they were out of spec because we checked them and Colt verified it.
We destroyed them bacause we do not have a choice. Most all the others we transfered to other agencies. These were the last ones left and no one else wanted them. We are not permitted to keep weapons over alloted inventory numbers, they had been replaced in inventory by the S&W, and our time limit was up to have them transfered elsewhere so we got a directive to destroy them.
Can't be correct. All the internal parts in the 6920's we disposed of were not the same as the M-4 parts, this was verified by Colt.
Per BATF requirements, all manufacturers of semi-auto AR's for the civilian available market are required to make civilian available AR versions internally different from the military version. These changes mostly involve the bolt carrier, hammer, and milling the internal lower receiver slightly different, and of course the rest of the auto related stuff. Colt can not use all the same set of parts for civilian available models as used in the military M-4.
The parts may come from the same manufacturing infrastructure, but there is not only one set of parts.
They may be around $1,000.00 at what you sale them for but the national average ranges $1100 to $1300 depending on where you buy from and the middle of that range is around $1200.00.
I don't profess to know the minds of these manufacturers like you do, but I do know one thing and thats other manufacturers don't have a Colt for other than business reasons. I know this from speaking with them during the selection process to replace our Colts. Why these other companies may have a Colt around also? Not a suprise at all, if I didn't want to upset the bear I would not poke it with a stick either. If a company knows it will either get sued or life made extreamly difficult for them in the market place they will probably not poke the bear and probably not compete for the bears territory. As an example, look at what happened to Bushmaster and Heckler & Koch when they were sued by Colt for, among other things, blurring the distinction between Colt's product and their own when they started going after the civilian and military market with their own M-4 models and Colt claimed they duplicated the look and feel of the Colt. Its the reason why the Heckler & Koch 416 is called the "416" today instead of the "M-4" it was originally called, both Bushmaster and H&K were considered as possible military suppliers for the M-4 to either replace Colt or along with Colt but that was squelched when Colt filed their lawsuit. It cost Bushmaster and H&K millions to fight that lawsuit and they were forced to re-design somewhat, re-market, and re-manufacture somewhat, to "unblur" the distinction costing yet more millions. Other manufacturers learned from that, don't poke the bear.
One of the reasons, among others, some manufacturers keep a Colt for "reference" is to make sure their own product does not duplicate the look and feel of the Colt along with its function specifications, they know what will happen if they get too close and even if they prevail it will still have cost them millions and Colt would still go after them in the market making it extreamly difficult and painful for them. So yep, they purposely make sure they do not duplicate aspects of the Colt and keep a Colt for "reference" for that purpose, and they say nice things about Colt and don't poke the bear. Other manufacturers can't even advertise their weapons as similar to a Colt in the U.S. if anything is close enough to what Colt did even if they may be really be better, without Colts permission or license. The second a manufacturer starts bluring that distinction between their own product and Colts in the market it gets nasty so they don't poke the bear.
So to say Colt is some sort of "Gold Standard" is grosely overstating, its like saying a football team is the undisputed champion when they became that way because they were allowed to handicap the other team in every game. So yeah its easy to be a "Gold Standard" when no one else is allowed to compete fully.
Clue? Hardly, its business plain and simple. Its true that Colt makes a fine weapon but other manufacturers do too.
4140 is less expensive per unit (not necessarily cheaper) than for example 4150, but it is not inferior or lack quality as you imply for semi auto civilian AR weapons. Colt cuts costs also on many of their civilian available models yet keeps their MSRP prices on the average or generally higher than a comparable model from another manufacturer which causes on the average national retail sales to remain higher than comparable models from other manufacturers. They don't pass on the savings from cost cutting to the consumer like other manufacturers may do in their pricing. Yet at the same time they are advertising the Colt "legend" surrounding their involvement in the military platform and using it to suggest in such a manner as to lead people to believe they will get an "original" the same thing as the military models when that is not possible for civilian available AR versions, and the rest is the broad generalizations and opinons from people.
For civilan AR semi-auto fire there is no difference in application between 4140 steel and 4150 steel. 4150 was used in military barrels for its ability to withstand the higher temperatures of prolonged or repeated full auto fire, 4140 performs identically in application to 4150 at semi-auto fire rates and both 4140 and 4150 are equally dense for the application. So although the use of 4140 is less expensive per unit than 4150, its not being "cheap" to use it and it makes perfect sense to do so in relation to market price point and application because its all thats needed for semi-auto fire for civilian AR's, this helps translate to a lower purchase price for the consumer which is something Colt is overall unwilling to do for the consumer.
It is not true that 4140 steel means a weapon is over gassed or has an out of spec chamber, or 4140 is inferior to a steel that may be used by Colt, 4140 steel is well suited to semi-auto fire of civilian AR's.
Something I am curious about; Are you going to continue the sales pitch infomercial by continuing to imply people wasted their money on S&W for one reason or another with broad unqualified generalizations and opinions and they should consider or buy a Colt instead because you happen to sale Colts for around $1,000.00?
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
For Sale Browning Hi Power magazines (6)
- Latest: silverstateS&W
-
-
-
-
Colt King Cobra Target .22 .....
- Latest: cowboy94916
-
