New Colt to compete with the Sport

[cyphertext]

Check out the new Colt M4 Expanse... made to compete with the Sport and Ruger. Now that S&W has added a forward assist and dust cover, Colt has decided to leave them off their intro rifle... left the holes for the parts, just didn't finish building the rifle.

fast forward to 1:28 mark for the rifle...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K44mmTwK2TA&feature=youtu.be&t=90"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K44mmTwK2TA&feature=youtu.be&t=90[/ame]

 

[jkasch]

They left of the rear sight and chrome barrel lining as well. Not sure if the barrel has any treatment.

 

[cyphertext]

They left of the rear sight and chrome barrel lining as well. Not sure if the barrel has any treatment.

It doesn't have any treatment from what I have read. Not sure on twist or barrel material either... I am assuming that it is 1:7.

I also read that they use the SA type bolt carrier vs. the FA type that Colt typically uses.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Comparison to Sport II

Expanse M4: Colt's Cheap AR

 

[cyphertext]

Comparison to Sport II

Expanse M4: Colt's Cheap AR

Couple of questions on the Sport II in that chart... like only the firing pin being chromed, and they stated that the finish is Armornite, which is only the barrel... the rest of the rifle is anodized.

I'm sure this rifle will sell on name alone, but I'm not convinced that it is a better value than the Sport II or the Ruger.

 

[regme]

My understanding is that nitride processing will only work with ferrous based metal. Receivers are aluminum, non-ferrous.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Unless the barrel is finished Phosphate it's not milspec. Barrel will probably snap in half.

 

[JaPes]

Leave it to Colt to jump on the inexpensive AR-15 from four years ago. Today, there are full featured AR-15's with standard furniture that are cheaper than that Colt. IMO, if you're not going to get a dust cover or forward assist, then it should be semi-slick sided like the original 15-Sport. Leaving the mounting points and holes just looks unfinished. Then they don't throw in a rear sight, no hardness/corrosion treatment for the barrel either.

MEh...

 

[snm8510]

Yeah, to me that price point is pretty high for such a low featured, unfinished gun. I see it as a flunk personally, but as said above, the name will sell. I'm just ready to watch the fanboys start talking.

 

[sgtsandman]

Colt still doesn't seem to get it. I'm sure there will be plenty of people who will get it because it's a Colt but I'm the type of person who prefers to go after good value for the money. As long as the price is right and it's decent build with good reviews, I don't care about the name and I'm not going to pay a premium because of the name on the side of the firearm.

Not to say I'm cheap either. Buying an M&P10 or a UCII isn't cheap. Granted there may be better firearms at a higher price but for the performance I get from those firearms with the money I paid, it would be difficult to justify going with the higher priced model. Unless, I was making a living off competitions or something like that where every little detail could be the difference between winning and not.

On the other hand, I have an inexpensive Chiappa MFour-22 as a trainer and use Marlin lever rifles for hunting. They do the intended job I got them for and have a good reputation for those purposes.

 

[Rastoff]

And here I thought it was everyone else competing with Colt. Who knew?

What I find interesting is that they call it an M4, but it doesn't have an M4 profile barrel.

 

[JaPes]

I'm the type of person who prefers to go after good value for the money. As long as the price is right and it's decent build with good reviews, I don't care about the name and I'm not going to pay a premium because of the name on the side of the firearm.

Not to say I'm cheap either.

Bingo. It's the value proposition that makes the difference. What do I buy in return for my money? Does it fit my purpose of use? Does it fit me? It's not about being cheap.

What I find interesting is that they call it an M4, but it doesn't have an M4 profile barrel.

Colt came out of bankruptcy debt restructuring. Looks like someone over there finally realized that there's a civilian market and hired a marketer with basic manipulation skills:

Marketing guy: "Let's just call it an "M4" for branding purposes to draw in the suckers. If the Colt Prancing Pony roll mark doesn't turn them into mindless buying lemmings, the "M4" designation will. We can also use our warehouse of existing receivers, not spend the labor to fully assemble them, and call it a beginner's level rifle. Since we don't have any rear sights because suppliers know our credit sucks, we'll just say we did all of it intentionally. We'll pass on the cost of all the finishing steps to the consumer and trick them into believing we did that intentionally to save them money. Oh and while at SHOT, get Maggie Reese to talk the rifle up and we couldn't hire that Tori Nonaka away from Glock."

The civilian Colt "M4" is about as close to the military contract FN M4/M16 as Kalashnikov U.S.A. AK-47's are Russian.

 

[Waywatcher]

I have a Colt 6920 and I like it, but JaPes, you're right on.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I wonder what it costs to add a forward assist to that rifle after you bring it home?

 

[JaPes]

I wonder what it costs to add a forward assist to that rifle after you bring it home?

The parts aren't expensive. A standard forward assist assembly retails for around $20. A standard dust cover $15-$20. Colt gets volume pricing so those parts costs are even lower. What they are saving on is labor. They're not spending the money per hour to install them. They're not having to hire on additional labor to keep production output volume stable.

Colt M4 Expanse MSRP = $699. No dust cover. No forward assist. No rear sight. No barrel treatment.

Colt's perceived brand value is what's going to support higher prices, not actual rifle features and component specs.

 

[JaPes]

I have a Colt 6920 and I like it, but JaPes, you're right on.

Please don't interpret what I'm writing as general Colt bashing. I recognize Colt makes a good AR-15. The 69XX series are typically good rifles, just as any other.

My gripe is that they're obviously going after the entry level beginner market novice buyers via a low price point. Those novice buyers will get suckered into buying based solely on brand recognition not features. There are a few affordable AR-15's on the market that represent a better value to the consumer.

It will be interesting to see what other legacy Colt products they bring back in order to pander to the inexperienced. The rumors of new production run Colt Pythons is a prime example.

 

[jkasch]

They could have called it the Cino. (Colt in name only)

 

[Hapworth]

Given the price point, it makes no sense to me not to spend $200 more for a full-fledged 6920; if one truly can't find the extra $200, the Sport II is better outfitted.

 

[Kadonny]

What a bargain, they even had the insight to not clutter it up with a rear sight.

Either make it like the OR with no sights at all or include both sights, don't go half way.

 

[cyphertext]

They could have called it the Cino. (Colt in name only)

They tried that with the Colt 6900.