Wondering if something like a Colt 6920 (9mm, 16" carbine) will be able to be purchased after the AWB sunsets in Sept? As I think it only has the evil preban features (bayonet mount, collapsable stock, flash hider), wouldn't it be OK after the ban - it still has a 16" barrel which has always been the min. for civilians.
Colt LE AR's after AWB
- Thread starter ilmonster
- Start date
- Status
Gary G23
Member
yep
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
i'm kinda thinking that LEO only marker lowers may be collectable in 20 years
Colt may elect to not have a "fully featured" civilian AR for sale to the proletariat
IIRC, they dropped the bayonet lug as a feature on the Sporter
before they were required to do so, by the 1994 AW Law.
Removing the lug from the forged front sight base is an expense.
Colt may elect to not have a "fully featured" civilian AR for sale to the proletariat
IIRC, they dropped the bayonet lug as a feature on the Sporter
before they were required to do so, by the 1994 AW Law.
Removing the lug from the forged front sight base is an expense.
I don't really care if it is marked LEO, I am just looking for a 9mm AR, and would rather have a Colt that build up a RRA or an Olympic. As an aside, can the lower from a Colt 9MM be used for a regular Colt .223 AR upper?
The Colt R6920 is a 5.56mm weapon. I don't remember the model number for the 9mm carbine.
Jeff
Jeff
shoobe01
Member
6450
"IIRC, they dropped the bayonet lug as a feature on the Sporter
before they were required to do so, by the 1994 AW Law."
My 9mm AR doesn't have a bayonet lug. If it did, it would be strictly for decoration. With the 16" barrel and short handguards the bayonet would only stick out about 3"-4" past the barrel.
I also have a couple uppers with the 11.5" barrel and the 5" flash suppressor. They have bayonet lugs, but again, you can't actually use a bayonet with them. The flash suppressor is too big in diameter.
I am against these evil features bans as much as the next guy, but I honestly don't care about having a bayonet lug. Especially when it wouldn't work anyway.
before they were required to do so, by the 1994 AW Law."
My 9mm AR doesn't have a bayonet lug. If it did, it would be strictly for decoration. With the 16" barrel and short handguards the bayonet would only stick out about 3"-4" past the barrel.
I also have a couple uppers with the 11.5" barrel and the 5" flash suppressor. They have bayonet lugs, but again, you can't actually use a bayonet with them. The flash suppressor is too big in diameter.
I am against these evil features bans as much as the next guy, but I honestly don't care about having a bayonet lug. Especially when it wouldn't work anyway.
russlate
Member
I like having a workable bayonnet lug.
Most folks have never had the experience of being shot, but they have been cut at one time or another. They therefore react more viscerally to the sight of a fixed bayonnet than just the sight of a gun.
I like the idea of making an potential assailant stop to think " This guy is crazier than I am! " Maybe he'll decide to go away.
Most folks have never had the experience of being shot, but they have been cut at one time or another. They therefore react more viscerally to the sight of a fixed bayonnet than just the sight of a gun.
I like the idea of making an potential assailant stop to think " This guy is crazier than I am! " Maybe he'll decide to go away.
natedog
Member
I'd love a Colt Government Carbine....if they had a flattop version. The Colt Tactical Carbine (A3) has a heavy barrel- curses!
grendelbane
Member
I removed the mag blocks from my Colt 9mm so I could shoot 5.56.
The 9mm hammer will work with 5.56. I also replaced the buffer with a regular 5.56 one.
With a Rock River Arms mag block I can change back to 9mm when I want to.
The 9mm hammer is just a stub compared to the regular semi hammer. Removing all that junk makes it lighter, and increasess lock time.
The only problem I have ever had is a few failures to fire with Federal unleaded primers. It seems like you can strike these too hard to fire. Everything else has been 100 per cent.
The 9mm hammer will work with 5.56. I also replaced the buffer with a regular 5.56 one.
With a Rock River Arms mag block I can change back to 9mm when I want to.
The 9mm hammer is just a stub compared to the regular semi hammer. Removing all that junk makes it lighter, and increasess lock time.
The only problem I have ever had is a few failures to fire with Federal unleaded primers. It seems like you can strike these too hard to fire. Everything else has been 100 per cent.
TX65
Member
Speaking with a BATF inspector, an item marked LEO will remain LEO if the ban expires (that includes rifles and magazines)
Whether Colt elects to offer those models without LEO markings will be up to Colt. As has been mentioned, Colt already was making changes to the AR15 prior to the 1994 ban including dropping the AR15 name from civilian models. Being the only true AR15 maker (Colt is the trademark holder), Colt was the focus of attention by the anti-gun groups and the Colt AR15 is specifically named in the 1994 ban whereas other guns (like the Colt Sporter) were addressed in the combination of features section.
Whether Colt elects to offer those models without LEO markings will be up to Colt. As has been mentioned, Colt already was making changes to the AR15 prior to the 1994 ban including dropping the AR15 name from civilian models. Being the only true AR15 maker (Colt is the trademark holder), Colt was the focus of attention by the anti-gun groups and the Colt AR15 is specifically named in the 1994 ban whereas other guns (like the Colt Sporter) were addressed in the combination of features section.
Wildalaska
member
OK folks heres the skinny...
ATF has not published, promulgated or taken any position on LEO markings on guns and mags. As confessed to me by more than one Inpsector and Special Agenthowever, "if there isnt any law, who cares how its marked"
If I was a collector of suchlike, Id be buying an LEO marked gun.
WildstoppingrumoursintheirtracksAlaska
natedog
Member
I agree with Wildalaska. The markings on the guns/magazines are just to show that the gun/magazine was produced after September 13, 1994. After the AWB sunsets, it won't matter if the gun/magazine was produced after or before 1994.
TX65
Member
WildAlaska,
You bring the classic BATF situation to light, inspectors and agents do state different interptations. Your agents in Alaska may state one view, my agents in Texas another
TX65
You bring the classic BATF situation to light, inspectors and agents do state different interptations. Your agents in Alaska may state one view, my agents in Texas another
TX65
DMK
Member
Keep in mind that the LEO markings were part of the AWB legalese. If the law is gone then any arrest based on those markings would be illegal. Wrongful arrest charges and civil lawsuit could be brought against the agent making such an arrest.
It is not a federal agent's job to interpret the law. His/her job is to investigate crime and enforce the law. It is the job of judge and jury to interpret the law.
Wildalaska
member
My agents in Alaska dont have a view. Thats Becasue the ATF as a whole doesnt have a view. If they did have a view they would tell me. And if you agent is telling you what the ATFs view is, he must be confabulating, becasue the view doesnt exist.
WildfollowmeAlaska
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
i don't have much use for a bayonet lug either
but a bolt on, 12.99 accessory lug would quicky mutate any AR15 into "SAW" status post 9-13-04
but a bolt on, 12.99 accessory lug would quicky mutate any AR15 into "SAW" status post 9-13-04
HankB
Member
It would take a major change in the philosophy of Colt's management to officially offer "LEO-type" rifles to mere civilians. Without being forced to by law, Colt's did the following:
* Removed the bayonet lug
* Changed to non-standard size pins
* Installed a block in the lower to make trigger work harder
* Stopped shipping rifles with standard-cap magazines. (This was spotty.)
Supposedly they toyed with the idea of altering "civilian" lowers so they wouldn't take preban milspec magazines, but for once sanity prevailed and this didn't happen; someone realized their civilian sales would drop to near-zero.
* Removed the bayonet lug
* Changed to non-standard size pins
* Installed a block in the lower to make trigger work harder
* Stopped shipping rifles with standard-cap magazines. (This was spotty.)
Supposedly they toyed with the idea of altering "civilian" lowers so they wouldn't take preban milspec magazines, but for once sanity prevailed and this didn't happen; someone realized their civilian sales would drop to near-zero.
- Status
