Why other brands and not Colt AR's.

Status
Not open for further replies.
other brands have simply outdone them. As others mentioned:
-one trick pony selection
-don't even follow their own mil-spec (second-raters like us get oversized FCGs for forced reliance...yeah thanks for that)
-more expensive than similar quality brands
-AR 'building' is very mainstream and no one is gonna pay $1200 for a pony when a BCM upper and lower parts beats it by the cost of a new gun.
 
other brands have simply outdone them. As others mentioned:
-one trick pony selection - That true.
-don't even follow their own mil-spec (second-raters like us get oversized FCGs for forced reliance...yeah thanks for that) Not true.FCG pins have been standard for the past 3 years.
-more expensive than similar quality brands Not by much.
-AR 'building' is very mainstream and no one is gonna pay $1200 for a pony when a BCM upper and lower parts beats it by the cost of a new gun. People are paying ~ $1k for Colt 6920s. So yes, I'd agree that no one is gonna pay $1200 :neener:
 
Originally Posted by InkEd
For the same reason people don't buy Colt 1911's. You can get as good (or better) guns for less money. The ol' gray mare ain't what she used to be.
Click to expand...

Since the only valid comparison would be an apples to apples comparison, who makes a better M4 type rifle, and how, specifically?

What specs offered by other companies surpass the specs of the Colt 6920?
 
If I found an SP1 I'd probably snap it up.

That being said, my 5.56 is an FN because their bull-pup design is preferable to me for it's purposes; a primary combat rifle I can use for competition when I want to. YMMV.
 
I think a lot of the venom against Colt is from some of the changed they made back in the day to keep their biggest client happy.

People seem to have the idea that gun companies "owe" the civilian market. Frankly this is not the case. A gun companies one and only priority is to make money. In the case of Colt their single biggest client happens to be the US government. That means that the product they produce should be geared towards that client. Yes I know they make pistols but Ars comprise a large part of their business and I am just focusing on that part of the product line for now.

It doesn't make sense for Colt to make a bunch of designs that their big client doesn't want when making those designs would pull away from production time of the product they need to be selling. Is a Mid Length system better than a carbine for a civilian shooter? Yes. Is it what the military wants right now? NO. So Colt doesn't make it.

Now there is no denying Colt has made some decision that we look at from the outside and say ***! Over sized FCG pins, sear blocks, etc. But once again they did this to try to keep their biggest client happy. I can't fault them for that. Also if you look at current production guns they have gotten rid of all those things. So there is no reason to not purchase one of their guns. Of course I know people who won't buy a Ruger because of something Bill Ruger said 20 years ago. So I am sure there are plenty of people who will disagree.

And frankly Colt is still the Gold standard. Love them or hate them they build their guns to work. Not to be pretty, not to sit in a safe, but to go bang every time the trigger is pulled.

All that being said I am not the biggest fan of Colt. Sure I would love to snag up a 6920 just to have. But I find that DD and Noveske fit my needs far better. The DD guns are a bit cheaper for the same quality and the Noveske guns are a bit better than Colt for similar money. They both also offer configurations I want. Mid length gas, etc.
 
Specifically regarding price, there used to be a significant difference, but right now with the bottoming of the market there is not. All the "mil spec" brands except maybe Spikes now are going to be within a couple hundred bucks of each other, if that. Now really is the best time to buy a Colt, with the low prices, since they are currently no more expensive and will retain their value much better than anything else. Late last year I bought a 6920 and 6921 for $1050 and $1075 respectively (couldn't have done so for within 500 bucks of that just a short time ago)... You aren't going to beat that by much anywhere else. They have standard lower pins and standard full auto carriers. They do have sear blocks.:rolleyes: Oh well.

The non "LE" models are not very "mil-spec", so if that is what you want, be sure to research the specific model number you are looking at.
 
The non "LE" models are not very "mil-spec", so if that is what you want, be sure to research the specific model number you are looking at.
Click to expand...

Can you clarify this? The SP6920 is identical to the LE model except the rollmark.
 
I'm thinking of some HBAR variants I have seen in gunstores, that did not have "LE" model numbers, and also some of the ban-era models I looked at closely at that time. I don't know details of every product they make, but based on past experience I would look hard at anything that doesn't start with "LE" in the model number if "milspec" is the goal.
 
boricua said:
Since the only valid comparison would be an apples to apples comparison, who makes a better M4 type rifle, and how, specifically?

What specs offered by other companies surpass the specs of the Colt 6920?
Click to expand...
AR-Comparison-Chart.gif

looks like Noveske and LMT offer many of the same elite features. the thing is I don't really believe "better" is synonymous with "mil-spec" and how would you decide what is better than those specs?

one nice thing is that the Colt retains it's value better. perhaps in part because they aren't a custom made to order things like Dell computers and Rock River rifles.
 
Because they are far from the best and that there is proof that Colt is far from the most reliable rifle the military is buying.
 
Three reasons.
One is some people either don't believe, don't realize or don't care about the advantages of a colt over some of the other ARs.
Two, Colts only come in limited configurations.
Three, until their recent price drop Colts were much more expensive than the nonboutique AR makers.

LMT and Noveske don't have a gun i'm aware of for anywhere near under a grand like the Colt 6920.
 
LMT defenders tend to be cheaper than a 6920. However their MRP uppers are more.

Because they are far from the best and that there is proof that Colt is far from the most reliable rifle the military is buying.
Click to expand...

Care to back that up with some data?
 
looks like Noveske and LMT offer many of the same elite features. the thing is I don't really believe "better" is synonymous with "mil-spec" and how would you decide what is better than those specs?

one nice thing is that the Colt retains it's value better. perhaps in part because they aren't a custom made to order things like Dell computers and Rock River rifles.
Click to expand...

That's the point I'm trying to make. At best, there are brands out there that are comparable to Colt that can be had for less money. If someone is going to say there are BETTER M4 clones, then I'd love to hear HOW and WHY the particular feature is quantified as BETTER. For some folks, the argument that something is cheaper and comparable makes the cheaper option a better choice in their minds, but does that mean the RIFLE is BETTER?

Of course, when we talk about resale value, the lower-priced choice tends to be more unknown to the masses (non-savvy AR folks). At that point, the lower-priced option winds up taking a bigger hit on depreciation.
 
They are a good choice if you want a 16" M4gery, but that's about it. They do not make a 20" mil spec, gov't profile upper like BCM and CMMG -- their only 20" is the heavy HBAR. They also do not have a 14.5" barreled option like others do... if you want a carbine from them, you're limited to the 16" with carbine length gas system, along with its too-long dwell time and inflated price over companies who make rifles with the same level of quality.

I am simply not interested in a 16" barreled AR with a carbine length gas system, and if I was, I would buy from CMMG or BCM since they have similar quality at a lower price. I suppose that's why I don't buy from Colt.
 
This paragraph bring into question he entire article. It is inaccurate to say the least and just sputs the same misinformation that has been around for years.

Like its predecessor the M16, the M4 also has a reputation as an excellent weapon – if you can maintain it. Failure to maintain the weapon meticulously can lead to jams, especially in sandy or dusty environments. Kalashnikovs may not have a reputation for accuracy, or lightness – but they do have a well-earned reputation for being able to take amazing amounts of abuse, without maintenance, and still fire reliably. The Israeli “Galil” applied these lessons in 5.56mm caliber, and earned a similar reputation. Colt’s M16 and M4 have never done so.
Click to expand...

The numbers have shown time and again that the M4 does not have a high failure rate when it is used in the role it was intended for. If you try to use it as an LMG it is going ot fail. If you never lube it, it is going ot fail. Guess what. The same is true of an AK. of course the errornet doesn't believe that.
 
"The numbers have shown time and again that the M4 does not have a high failure rate when it is used in the role it was intended for. If you try to use it as an LMG it is going ot fail. If you never lube it, it is going ot fail. Guess what. The same is true of an AK."

I don't wana help hijack this thread into an AR reliability rehash but An AK will run forever even if dry as a bucket of sand. With an AK there is no "if" needed after saying "an AK is reliable".
 
JustinJ said:
"The numbers have shown time and again that the M4 does not have a high failure rate when it is used in the role it was intended for. If you try to use it as an LMG it is going ot fail. If you never lube it, it is going ot fail. Guess what. The same is true of an AK."

I don't wana help hijack this thread into an AR reliability rehash but An AK will run forever even if dry as a bucket of sand. With an AK there is no "if" needed after saying "an AK is reliable".
Click to expand...
Im pretty sure Kwelz wasnt trying to start a M4 v AK debate. He was simply stating that the M4 is a very reliable weapon when used as intended.

While anyone will agree that the AK is a very very reliable rifle, it still can and will fail if abused to much and used as a LMG. The Iraqi military and police forces had horribly abused AKs that I have seen malfunction many times.
 
To the OP.

Colt is still the gold standard by which other M4 variants are based. You can buy a rifle that meets a specific criteria better than the Colt 6920, but when buying a M4 variant rifle you can not buy a better rifle than the Colt.

The Colt 6920/6921 are the civilian copies of the M4, the 6921 has a 14.5 inch barrel. They are made to military spec and make a fantastic fighting rifle.

Not everyone buys an AR15 as a fighting rifle though. Many other companies, ie DPMS, Stag, etc.. build rifles for target shooting and hunting. Many people buy these because they serve those roles better than the 6920. Some other people would rather spend less money on their other brand. AR15s start at around 600 bucks and the 6920 is right about 1000 dollars rght now. Many people are unable or unwilling to spend that extra money for a rifle that they are going to just shoot at the range.
 
Have to disagree with CGrunt. There are other brands of M4 that provide upgrades over the Colt models. Things like Nickel Boron coated FCG's and bolts, dual-chromed barrels that achieve better durability with great accuracy, tungsten filled buffers, etc. are all things that would be upgrades over the basic "milspec" design offered by Colt. Furthermore, it isn't like buying a Colt will always ensure "milspec", as we have seen by some of their past practices with pins on their FCG's.

Why not buy a Colt? I just can't see justifying the expense unless you are buying as an investment to sell later. The Colt name and rollmark is the only unique thing about their rifles these days. Spikes, LMT, BCM, Noveske, and Daniel Defense are just a few of the companies producing a comparable or superior product to Colt these days. The variety of options and upgrade components available on these guns make them better choices than Colt for a large number of shooters.

To me, the real question is why spend the money on Colt when you can get as good or better for less? A couple of hundred dollars goes a long way to customizing a rifle, buying ammo or getting training...a far more significant value than whatever perceived advantage Colt's reputation affords them.

If you want the Colt name and resale value, then by all means, get a Colt. You will get a great gun, but let's not pretend it is going to be vastly superior to its competition.
 
kwelz said:
I think a lot of the venom against Colt is from some of the changed they made back in the day to keep their biggest client happy.

People seem to have the idea that gun companies "owe" the civilian market. Frankly this is not the case. A gun companies one and only priority is to make money. In the case of Colt their single biggest client happens to be the US government. That means that the product they produce should be geared towards that client. Yes I know they make pistols but Ars comprise a large part of their business and I am just focusing on that part of the product line for now.

It doesn't make sense for Colt to make a bunch of designs that their big client doesn't want when making those designs would pull away from production time of the product they need to be selling. Is a Mid Length system better than a carbine for a civilian shooter? Yes. Is it what the military wants right now? NO. So Colt doesn't make it.

Now there is no denying Colt has made some decision that we look at from the outside and say ***! Over sized FCG pins, sear blocks, etc. But once again they did this to try to keep their biggest client happy. I can't fault them for that. Also if you look at current production guns they have gotten rid of all those things. So there is no reason to not purchase one of their guns. Of course I know people who won't buy a Ruger because of something Bill Ruger said 20 years ago. So I am sure there are plenty of people who will disagree.
Click to expand...

Justifiable or not, we aren't talking about if they make the military happy. We're talking about making the civilian market happy. They don't compete much in today's market. They are a bit overpriced (though not near like they were) and they haven't kept up with trends. I don't blame them for making a product their big customer wants, but they won't see my money as is. There are plenty of others who look at me and people wanting a similar rifle as important and will build a rifle to fit my desires. For that, I'll shop elsewhere. While Colt doesn't owe me a thing, I surely don't owe Colt a thing and won't give them a thing as they sit today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
  • Poll
Which AR company is best?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Denny Hansen
D
T
  • Locked
AR brand quality/ranking question?
Replies
3
Views
520
Highcaliber
H
T
  • Locked
6.8 SPC Uppers?
Replies
12
Views
1K
slowworm
S
H
  • Locked
Stag Arms AR-15 for a lefty
Replies
1
Views
622
DPris
D
DMK
  • Locked
Why Colt Bolt/Carrier for AR?
Replies
11
Views
788
fix
F
Back
Top