Colt M4s

[TexasRifleman]

So then you are saying that if you want a tough as nails service gun then buy a Colt???? Are you saying that the other brands won't stand up to hard service??

Well yes, I thought we established up front that the 1% hard use guys buy Colts, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you want to emulate their equipment, buy Colt. They make a great rifle, I have a 6920 and I love it.

But that doesn't mean that you or I actually will put our firearms in the situations and environments our soldiers do.

It also doesn't mean that the AR clones can't survive what we as "normal" people do to them.

It doesn't mean that a Colt will somehow survive longer in our "easy life" use than a Bushmaster or a Rock River.

That is the argument that doesn't hold water, not that Colts are not better. They are clearly better but at some point for most shooters there is a line of "more than plenty" and most of the top AR makers are well past that line.

A Colt in my safe firing a few hundred rounds a year won't last any longer than the Rock River sitting next to it, shooting the same amount of ammo

 

[Just Jim]

If your purposes are served by a little Toyota pickup, there's no need to buy a crew-cab F350 XLT "just in case." If you're looking for a semi-sporty commuter car, you can buy a Miata instead of a Corvette. If you still want to - fine. But that's a personal choice, as with all things.

But if you really needed the best you would buy a Corvette over a Miata right??

Is this now the American standard, buy what will do for now and hope you don't need to have something better??

jj

 

[TexasRifleman]

Is this now the American standard, buy what will do for now and hope you don't need to have something better??

So in your argument, we should all be driving Mercedes, clearly the finest auto on the planet.

God forbid that Americans buy less than the absolute best, even though we have no need for the capabilities right?

That's a silly argument whether applied to cars, or guns....

 

[Just Jim]

They are clearly better but at some point for most shooters there is a line of "more than plenty" and most of the top AR makers are well past that line.

The article listed 11 more manufacturers of ARs and also listed the test inspection performed by each company. Clearly half of them did very few inspections and some didn't even do work that is required by the DOD to keep a gun running.

My point of view is really getting turned here. I used to think just any old AR was good enough but now I am begining to think that some of the ARs may as well be Chinese copies.

jj

 

[Just Jim]

That's a silly argument whether applied to cars, or guns....

So you carry a Lorcin or a Raven for a CCW then??

If a person percieves they need the best then if they can afford it they should buy it.

jj

 

[FlyinBryan]

sarcastic, of course, but not that far off base

not even close.

had a colt match target rifle, model 6700c. the rifle jammed MAYBE 5 TIMES in appx. 10k rounds.

now have bushmaster 16" hvy bbl carbine. its jammed or stopped exactly zero times in at least 5k rounds.

brother has identical bushmaster. exactly zero stops for any reason in at least 5k rounds.

my bud just bought the same bushmaster. exactly zero stops in his first 1k rounds.



to original poster. my colts have been good rifles.

my bushmaster as well as everyone ive ever seen has been far superior.

my colt was a match target rifle.
my bushmaster is not, but its groups are almost half the size. (1"@1oom)

dont believe everything you read in a book. sometimes you gotta do things for yourself to find out the truth.

sorry if the truth is not what you wanted to hear, but its the truth.

my apoligies.

 

[sarduy]

so according to this chart Colt and a upgraded Noveske meet 22/23 mil-spec right?

now...

if you upgrade a CMMG it meets 20/23, and i'm going to finish my CMMG with those Upgrades for under $800


so for a 20/23 mil-spec rifle i think the CMMG is the best choice...BUT once again that just me, anyone feel that i'm right on that? the same way i do?

 

[Just Jim]

sorry if the truth is not what you wanted to hear, but its the truth.

my apoligies.

The truth should never need an apology behind it. I doubt there is anything said over the net that people can really get worked up about. However the article was in print and very damning to the other makers of ARs.

It does help to get other points of view and that is why I started this thread. See I can't afford 12 different ARs from 12 different makers to find out which is best suited for me.

Thank you all for your replies. The search for knowledge goes on.

jj

 

[Gord]

Nothing constructive to add, disregard.

 

[Just Jim]

Hey thanks for the chart, it was part of the article.

jj

 

[Just Jim]

(according to what Guns & Ammo tells you is THE BEST, of course)

Actually the article was written for Surefire and published by Guns and Ammo. It was written by David Crane who is a Military Defense Industry Analyst and Consultant and Editor/Owner of DefenseReview.com.

Got his Phone number if you need to tell him he is wrong or [email protected]

jj

 

[Newton]

Ever noticed that AK owners don't spend countless hours arguing on Internet forums about which version of their weapon is the most reliable.

Guess that's why I have an Arsenal SA M-7, and just read these endless AR arguments for fun.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So you carry a Lorcin or a Raven for a CCW then??

If that was all I could afford the I most certainly would. If I ran 300 rounds through with no malfunctions why not.
I'd guess that more Lorcins and Ravens have killed people than Smith Performance Center revolvers have.

There is a wide spectrum of firearms for many different levels of price and need.

There's nothing wrong with that.

You seem convinced that somehow being "mil spec" means that the Colt will survive and all other ARs will explode upon firing.

Buy Colt. It seems that it's what you want. If having Colt makes you more confident in a weapon that you might use to defend your or anothers life, and you can afford it, by all means get it. That's a very important part of selecting a weapon, confidence level.

But to say that everyone else that has rationalized the decision to buy something other than Colt is "UnAmerican" is silly.

 

[taliv]

...

 

[strat81]

To be clear, I don't think anyone is calling Colt junk.

But if you really needed the best you would buy a Corvette over a Miata right??

Probably. If I needed a life or death gun that I was going to use in drug raids, the liberation of Baghdad or something similar, yeah, I'd probably pick the Colt or LMT over the DPMS.

But if my AR uses are plinking at the range and delusions of fending off zombie hordes, a Stag, Bushmaster, or Armalite will suffice.

Why buy the Corvette if you'll never take it on a track or exceed 65mph? Buy an Accord Coupe and call it a day.

Looking at the chart, it appears Rock River is a junk gun because it doesn't have as many Xs as Colt. RRAs are not junk guns. Some folks may have other preferences, but I've never seen an overwhelming number of people say they're crap. Same goes for Armalite.

The chart is biased because it stresses MIL-SPEC. Mil-spec is not bad, but much of the mil-spec is for making sure the gun works reliably under full-auto/burst fire in a war zone. Even most PDs aren't emptying 200+ rounds per rifle in a few minutes or hours time under the stress of automatic fire.

A perfect example of this is the M16 bolt carrier in the chart. The bolt carrier should not have a major effect on reliability, if any. You need an M16 carrier for full-auto/burst fire.

The 1:7 barrel twist is similar. Twist should have no effect on reliability.

Another, lesser example is the barrel steel. 4140 non-mil-spec barrels will not melt and fall off under heavy semi-auto fire. If you're going full-auto, yes, the 4150 should help.

 

[buzz_knox]

I've been in several carbine classes where the weapon run the spectrum from M4s to parts guns.

The parts guns have the most problems, with the lower tier weapons coming next. The M4s and 6920s run no matter what you do to them.

If you intend on shooting on the range at your own pace, most anything will do. If you intend on taking a course and pushing yourself and your weapon, it's worth spending the extra money to get the higher quality product. It not only allows you to focus on training, it allows your fellow shooters to focus on training rather than your being "that guy."

As for the Mil-spec issue, it's comes into play when you want to modify the weapon. Going off spec reduces your ability to do so.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I'm not a SEAL operator.

And they mostly don't use Colt uppers, and sometimes not Colt lowers . . .

 

[Downrange]

Great thread! Really useful information here and in those links! Thanks!

 

[Onesiphorus]

I think we should all bite right into a study of inspections of Colts, written by Colt.

 

[Joe Demko]

not very puzzling. you just have to watch people for a few years. it's not rocket science.

i didn't specify colt. i'm not even saying the choice is all that important. i'm just saying there are patterns of success and many components thereof. and I'll bet money that people who cut one corner are more likely to cut all of them.

they'll buy crappy ammo even after all their friends tell them not to. they'll put a $30 scope or red dot on there, even after everyone warns them not to. they buy the wrong mags. an airsoft sling. etc.

You left out that they'll kick puppies and backsass their mommies.

 

[sarduy]

Ever noticed that AK owners don't spend countless hours arguing on Internet forums about which version of their weapon is the most reliable.

Guess that's why I have an Arsenal SA M-7, and just read these endless AR arguments for fun.

hehehe... i own an ak and that's true, you dont see many AK vs AK threads out there

 

[sarduy]

Buy Colt. It seems that it's what you want. If having Colt makes you more confident in a weapon that you might use to defend your or anothers life, and you can afford it, by all means get it. That's a very important part of selecting a weapon, confidence level.

But to say that everyone else that has rationalized the decision to buy something other than Colt is "UnAmerican" is silly.

i agree with you completely.

i think "UnAmerican" is buying an AK-47 or a Mosin Nagant but hey...almost every gun collector have one, and there is nothing wrong with that!

i have a 94' celica with 252,000 miles and counting, without any mecanical problems at all, i want to see a Mustang or Corvette reach the 250,000 miles without break.

 

[Hunter0924]

I have shot a few other AR15 and they did work fine.
Side by side I have had better accuracy from my few Colt AR15s than Bushmaster or DPMS.
I prefer the best rifle I can afford and if I cannot afford a Colt I keep saving until I can.
Admittedly I am bias toward Colt but with good reason, from my experience they are the best AR15s I have shot.
I agree that most of the AR15s on the market will do the job for most of the shooters but aside from the Colt being a little nicer for me there is pride in owning a Colt.

 

[buzz_knox]

Ever noticed that AK owners don't spend countless hours arguing on Internet forums about which version of their weapon is the most reliable.

Guess that's why I have an Arsenal SA M-7, and just read these endless AR arguments for fun.

Did you miss the numberous threads asking why anyone would pay for an Arsenal when a WASR-10 was just as good? Or the ones arguing stamped versus milled?

 

[cracked butt]

Although the assembly LOOKS Lego simple, it's not.

They are Lego simple. The problem is that not everyone is smart or handy enough to put Legos together straight.