Colt M4 or SW M&P AR
- Thread starter jbh13
- Start date
- Status
kwelz
Member
Doubletap
kwelz
Member
Colt 6920 is a higher quality rifle. However it will cost you more than the Smith.
The Smith isn't a bad rifle however so you would not be ill served with it.
The Smith isn't a bad rifle however so you would not be ill served with it.
Wow, either you got a good deal on the Colt or a bad price on the M&P. In that situation I would get the Colt then, but if the M&P's price was where it should be (around 700 dollars) I would get the M&P so I would have enough money left for an optic.
Remember you don't have to buy guns local you can order them online and pick them up at your favorite gun shop.
kwelz
Member
Yeah I say buy the Colt if the price is even close to each other. of course if you are not set on either I always suggest BCM over any other brand. Colt Quality at S&W pricing. 
MIL-DOT
member
I'm curious about a couple things. First, how ( and why) have you decided on two guns from nearly opposite ends of the price/quality spectrum ? I can understand wanting a Colt ( I've had a couple), but why ( and how) have you by-passed other top-quality AR's, like Noveske,Daniel Defense,Bravo Co.,Sabre Defense,LMT,Spikes, etc, yet settled on a S&W ? And, exactly how (and where) are a S&W and a Colt within a hundred bucks of each other? That sinply makes no sense at all. Last I checked, IIRC, a Colt is something like $1200+, and a Smith can be had for $600. Assuming this isn't a non-sense troll post from a thirteen year old, I would ask for more information. Is the Colt way under priced, or is the Smith way over priced ? If the Colt is underpriced, then you better jump quick, if the Smith is jacked up, then you'd be well served to look at something else, somehwere else, like a Spikes Tactical, or the Smith's over at CDNN ( assuming they're still there at that price).
Here's my guess - it's his first AR. My first AR was a M&P15, (and I disagree with your "opposite end of the quality spectrum" claim, but that's a discussion for a different thread).
@the original poster - there's nothing wrong with either rifle, but consider that you can get an AR of at least equal quality to the Colt for less than $1000. I recommend that you look at one of the brands alreadt mentioned - Spoikes, Bravo Company, et al. I also recommend that you get a rifle with a midlength gas system and a M16 BCG (that's easier to do with the other companies than it is with Colt or Smith).
My Smith is a really nice rifle, and has never had a failure. I use it for tactical carbine matches, but now that I know more about the AR platform, I'm building one myself from scratch. I've ordered a midlength barrel, and I'm in the process of gathering the parts to complete the upper.
@the original poster - there's nothing wrong with either rifle, but consider that you can get an AR of at least equal quality to the Colt for less than $1000. I recommend that you look at one of the brands alreadt mentioned - Spoikes, Bravo Company, et al. I also recommend that you get a rifle with a midlength gas system and a M16 BCG (that's easier to do with the other companies than it is with Colt or Smith).
My Smith is a really nice rifle, and has never had a failure. I use it for tactical carbine matches, but now that I know more about the AR platform, I'm building one myself from scratch. I've ordered a midlength barrel, and I'm in the process of gathering the parts to complete the upper.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Are Colt's really better or do people just think they are?
I ask because 'some' people choose their SAA over USFA because they 'think' they're getting more but they're really getting an inferior product at an inflated price......just for the mystical name. Not that new Colt's are bad, USFA's are just better and $400 less. Just curious if the same thing applies. It probably does.
I ask because 'some' people choose their SAA over USFA because they 'think' they're getting more but they're really getting an inferior product at an inflated price......just for the mystical name. Not that new Colt's are bad, USFA's are just better and $400 less. Just curious if the same thing applies. It probably does.
I just have two sides to this. Yes, It is my first AR (apart from my Sig 556), but I really love the M4 platform. Colt from a collector side is great to have and the way things are going it might be good to buy now and hold on to it.
On the other hand something that would be a starter AR, without building one, that would be good to use and abuse I thought might be the SW M&P.
I also would like to build one, one day, but not right now.
On the other hand something that would be a starter AR, without building one, that would be good to use and abuse I thought might be the SW M&P.
I also would like to build one, one day, but not right now.
Last edited:
kwelz
Member
Yes. The differences between various makes of rifles is well documented. Whether that higher quality is important to you or not is a matter of opinion but there is a marked difference in quality between say a Colt and a Bushmaster of the same cost.
12131
Member
$100 difference? Colt, of course. And I'm not even a Colt fan.
Mine will shoot into 2" at 200 meters not 200 yds. At 200 yds we are talking silver dollar accuracy. Try HSM 50 gr. VMax. Great stuff. Also don't get too high on the magnification. 6X is plenty. Its more about finding the right sight picture (including target design.) Once you get sighted in you will be able to hit a small plastic water bottle every time.
100% agree with everything here.
Pony Express
Member
between the two...colt
cwbjaxfl
Member
spikes tactical m4 le $799
The Colt...and it isn't about a pretty pony on the lower. the specs the Colt is made to are a lot better than the Smith, but the Smith isn't a bad rifle. For $3-$400 less, sure, but a $100, no contest.
A Spikes is made to better specs than the Smith and will cost less than either.
A Spikes is made to better specs than the Smith and will cost less than either.
- Status