MTMilitiaman
Member
I used to wine about the Colt KoolAid drinkers. Then I got myself a Colt 6920 and noticed that it tastes like grape, which is my favorite. Now I kind of drink the Kool Aid too. When the 6920 was stolen from the back of my truck while I was in the process of moving a few years ago, I replaced it ASAP with a Colt 6960CCU.
Colt is not the end-all-be-all and Mil-Spec is not the highest achievable standard. Rather, milspec means your gun doesn't suck any less than such-and-such standard. It is the lowest standard of achievement, but some of us find it comforting because it is definable and because the military arrived at that standard by learning some pretty tough lessons the hard way. Colt has been with them the whole way and has decades of experience building these rifles for front line combat. So yes, you do pay a little more for the Colt name. People in the know tend to respect that name, so the rifles tend to hold their value too. Colt still owns the Technical Data Package for the M16/M4. This is the military's list of materials, dimensions, treatments, and certifications that determines what "milspec" is. People pay more for Colt because they know what they are getting. It is nice knowing you have a properly contoured and chrome-lined CMV barrel that is MPI'd prior to leaving the factory, rated for full auto fire, and guaranteed to have a service life of 25,000 rounds. It is nice knowing that your gas block, gas key, and the collar around your receiver extension is properly pinned and staked. It is nice knowing you have a Carpenter 158 bolt, forged 7075 instead of cast or 6000 series aluminum in your receiver and receiver extension, and that all of these components are properly assembled by a professional who takes pride in their work. If you are looking for a hard use rifle, something to trust your life to, then paying the extra money for a Colt might be a good idea. You can find better fit and finish in a BCM or a Larue, but these rifles are going to cost you yet more. Sometimes considerably so. Colt gives the working man a solid rifle at a decent price. When I picked up my 6920, it was just under a grand and even came with sights. When I got my CCU, it was about $1200 and didn't have sights, but has the low profile gas block, midlength gas system, 15" freefloating M-Lock rail, and ambi switch. I consider both of these a steal for the price. When I had the 6920, I was on the bandwagon that is was the best service rifle of any manufacture or design available for under $1000.
I have a friend who just took advantage of some Black Friday sales to put together a PSA. It is a decent rifle and he is happy with it. Because it is set up much like mine at half the cost, he asked if I would rather have done something like his than pay for the Colt. I replied "hell no" so fast he was almost insulted, until I explained that I just like knowing what is on my rifle, and who built it. So I am not dissing PSA or their products, just saying that if you or a loved one might be trusting their life to this rifle, it might be advisable to pay for the Colt, as it is that minimum "milspec" standard that some of us have also trusted with our lives.
The 6920:
The 6960CCU:
Colt is not the end-all-be-all and Mil-Spec is not the highest achievable standard. Rather, milspec means your gun doesn't suck any less than such-and-such standard. It is the lowest standard of achievement, but some of us find it comforting because it is definable and because the military arrived at that standard by learning some pretty tough lessons the hard way. Colt has been with them the whole way and has decades of experience building these rifles for front line combat. So yes, you do pay a little more for the Colt name. People in the know tend to respect that name, so the rifles tend to hold their value too. Colt still owns the Technical Data Package for the M16/M4. This is the military's list of materials, dimensions, treatments, and certifications that determines what "milspec" is. People pay more for Colt because they know what they are getting. It is nice knowing you have a properly contoured and chrome-lined CMV barrel that is MPI'd prior to leaving the factory, rated for full auto fire, and guaranteed to have a service life of 25,000 rounds. It is nice knowing that your gas block, gas key, and the collar around your receiver extension is properly pinned and staked. It is nice knowing you have a Carpenter 158 bolt, forged 7075 instead of cast or 6000 series aluminum in your receiver and receiver extension, and that all of these components are properly assembled by a professional who takes pride in their work. If you are looking for a hard use rifle, something to trust your life to, then paying the extra money for a Colt might be a good idea. You can find better fit and finish in a BCM or a Larue, but these rifles are going to cost you yet more. Sometimes considerably so. Colt gives the working man a solid rifle at a decent price. When I picked up my 6920, it was just under a grand and even came with sights. When I got my CCU, it was about $1200 and didn't have sights, but has the low profile gas block, midlength gas system, 15" freefloating M-Lock rail, and ambi switch. I consider both of these a steal for the price. When I had the 6920, I was on the bandwagon that is was the best service rifle of any manufacture or design available for under $1000.
I have a friend who just took advantage of some Black Friday sales to put together a PSA. It is a decent rifle and he is happy with it. Because it is set up much like mine at half the cost, he asked if I would rather have done something like his than pay for the Colt. I replied "hell no" so fast he was almost insulted, until I explained that I just like knowing what is on my rifle, and who built it. So I am not dissing PSA or their products, just saying that if you or a loved one might be trusting their life to this rifle, it might be advisable to pay for the Colt, as it is that minimum "milspec" standard that some of us have also trusted with our lives.
The 6920:
The 6960CCU:
Last edited: