Colt m4 9620 and MT6400C differences


PDA






Hilux
November 24, 2005, 06:04 PM
What are the differences between these rifles is the MT6400C as good as the 6920 ? Help I want to get the right rifle right off the bat. Is the MT6400C made in the USA ?

If you enjoyed reading about "Colt m4 9620 and MT6400C differences" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jeff White
November 24, 2005, 07:56 PM
All Colt ARs are made in the US. If you're referring to the differences in the R6920 (Colt LE Carbine) and MT6400C, the R6920 has the evil collapsible stock and flash hider. The MT6400C has a permanently fixed stock and 94 ban legal muzzle brake. The R6920 also doesn't have the receiver block and it has standard sized trigger and hammer pins instead of the larger ones Colt started putting in their MT rifles a few years ago.

Jeff

Hilux
November 24, 2005, 08:14 PM
All Colt ARs are made in the US. If you're referring to the differences in the R6920 (Colt LE Carbine) and MT6400C, the R6920 has the evil collapsible stock and flash hider. The MT6400C has a permanently fixed stock and 94 ban legal muzzle brake. The R6920 also doesn't have the receiver block and it has standard sized trigger and hammer pins instead of the larger ones Colt started putting in their MT rifles a few years ago.

JeffWell it looks like I will be going for the 6920.

vanfunk
November 25, 2005, 08:19 AM
Just settin' the record straight...
The 6920 and the MT6400 both have the larger diameter fire control pins. If by sear block you mean the web of aluminum making a "bridge" across the lower receiver between the FCG and the buffer, they both have that too. The only mechanical differences between the two are the aforementioned stock and muzzle attachment. Cosmetically, the MT6400 is the only one marked "M4 Carbine", which is kinda cool:)

vanfunk

Jeff White
November 26, 2005, 07:38 PM
van funk,
I took delivery of my R6920 in June of 1999. I purchased it on a letterhead my chief signed for duty use. It does in fact have standard size trigger and hammer pins and no sear block (Colts used two types) in the lower receiver. The only one of Colt's modified AR15 parts it came with was the bolt carrier that is totally open at the bottom rear.

Colts is now shipping their LE weapons with M16 bolt carriers as they are in possession of a ruling from BATFE techical branch that an AR15 may now utilize an M16 bolt carrier and not be considered a machine gun, unless it actually functions automatically, which we all know the M16 bolt carrier, in and of itself will not make happen.

I'll be happy to post pictures of my 6920 when I get home (I'm currently on my son's computer at Ft Hood Texas and will be back at the end of next week after he deploys). You have not in fact set the record straight.

I have never seen a 6920, (and I've seen quite a few) that had oversized trigger and hammer pins and a sear block. However, given Colt's habit of producing rifles with whatever parts were on hand at the moment, it's quite possible that some exist.

Jeff

DrewH
November 26, 2005, 10:18 PM
My understanding is that all Colt LE6920s now come with the .170 oversized FC pins, and have an unmilled web in the receiver identical to the MT6400C's receiver. My personal 6920, bought in 2005, certainly did, and was identical to the MT6400C I bought in 2004 except for the flash suppressor, telescoping stock (both of which I have now installed on the MT6400C), bayonet lug, and rollmarks. Could have been different in 1999, of course. My 6920 also came with a M-16 bolt carrier. Both are very nice rifles, but MT6400Cs seem kind of hard to come by these days.

If you enjoyed reading about "Colt m4 9620 and MT6400C differences" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!