Light weight AR

[R H Clark]

I'm about to purchase a Colt 6720 LE Light Weight Carbine.I'm not that familiar with the AR platform and just wanted to know if there are any others in this price and quality range that I should be looking at.

Requirements are.
1.Light weight is number one as long as it isn't sacrificing quality.I have read less than stellar reviews on the Bushmaster Carbon 15 for example.

2.Must be a flat top for adding a scope.

3.Adjustable stock to fit wife and older kids also.

This will be more of a light weight hunting rig for under 100 yards than anything else.No need to try to convince me I need more than a 5.56.This will be for hogs in deep hard to reach places.

Sorry if this question has been asked a bunch.I searched and only came up with one thread from 2004.

 

[JustinJ]

The 6720 is awesome. That is what i built my favorite AR on. The military profile barrel does nothing but add weight in the worst place. It is prevalent because the industry is blindly following the military without accounting for the difference of application.

I added a Troy TRX rail to keep with the theme of keeping weight down. Instead of a quad rail it has one built in on top and you can add rail sections anywhere you wish as well as a sling disconnect. If i were buying today i'd go with the Alpha rail which is the same thing except uses a standard barrel nut and is probably a better attachment method.

As far as other options Daniel Defense also makes AR's with the pencil profile barrel. They also have incredibly lite rails but i prefer the modularity of the Troy. Another advantage of DD is they also have a midlength option available which i would have preferred but really wanted to go with Colt. DD also has hammer forged barrels available if you prefer but i'm not sure if so in pencil barrel.

The other gun to consider would BCM. They have a carbine and midleght lite weight AR option too.

Another huge advantage of the pencil barrel is for the use of a sound suppressor. It helps mitigate the additional weight at front.

 

[Quentin]

The Colt 6720 is an excellent choice in a lightweight AR. I was very tempted to go that route but instead put together a couple ARs using a BCM and a Daniel Defense LW upper. The main reason was I wanted the midlength gas system (over Colt's carbine length) and like to build up my own lower receiver. This isn't a necessity, just what worked for me.

For a little less money PSA has excellent LW carbines too.

 

[meanmrmustard]

S&W Sport. Meets your requirements. 6.5 lbs unloaded.

 

[Quentin]

Ah, you beat me to it, Justin!

 

[Thor88]

If you are really looking to go light weight, you may want to look at a polymer lower paired with a lightweight upper.

I had a New Frontier lower matched to a 16" lightweight Del-Ton that fit all of the criteria that you mentioned.

Never failed to go bang, and was as accurate as I am.
Weighed in at just a hair over 5lbs unloaded.

If you can get past some of the hate for polymer lowers, I would definitely suggest looking at that option.

 

[henschman]

I would second PSA -- they are made to the same mil specs as the Colt, but offer more options as far as barrel length, gas system length, etc., and are a better price.

For that role, I would personally want either a 14.7" barrel with carbine length gas, or a 16" barrel with mid-length gas. Colt unfortunately only offers a 16" barrel with carbine length gas.

 

[R H Clark]

henschman
I'll have to educate myself as to the pro's and con's on the gas length.I am new to AR's

 

[TenRingGuns.com]

Go with the LE6920MP-B, Magpul'ed out of the box for cheap.

 

[meanmrmustard]

I would second PSA -- they are made to the same mil specs as the Colt, but offer more options as far as barrel length, gas system length, etc., and are a better price.

For that role, I would personally want either a 14.7" barrel with carbine length gas, or a 16" barrel with mid-length gas. Colt unfortunately only offers a 16" barrel with carbine length gas.

What's the unloaded weight on that?

 

[justice06rr]

If you had the money to buy the Colt 6720, go for it.

Carbine gas systems are fine for casual use. Midlength and Rifle length gas systems are a bit more reliable, but a quality Carbine AR from Colt should be pretty reliable anyway.

To keep it lightweight, don't add to much accessories on it other than a flashlight, sling and scope. Another option is to buy a separate Polymer Lower like the LW15 and mate it to your upper from your complete Colt AR.

 

[Quentin]

...For that role, I would personally want either a 14.7" barrel with carbine length gas, or a 16" barrel with mid-length gas. Colt unfortunately only offers a 16" barrel with carbine length gas.

What's the unloaded weight on that?

My recent build comes in at 6lb 13oz as pictured. It has a BCM 16" LW midlength barrel. Without the optic and replacing the STR with a lighter M4 stock it would be more like 6.5lbs.

 

[meanmrmustard]

My recent build comes in at 6lb 13oz as pictured. It has a BCM 16" LW midlength barrel. Without the optic and replacing the STR with a lighter M4 stock it would be more like 6.5lbs.

Not bad at all. Sub 7lbs just feels too right to me for a rifle that's carbine length.

Do I spy a TRS25?

 

[R H Clark]

Thanks for all the input guys. The Colt 6720 weighs 6 lbs 2 oz with the Rogers stock. Since light weight is at the top of my list I will probably just get the 6720 unless anyone knows of another top tier AR in a configuration that might shave a few ounces at close to the same price.

 

[Captains1911]

I would second PSA -- they are made to the same mil specs as the Colt, but offer more options as far as barrel length, gas system length, etc., and are a better price.

For that role, I would personally want either a 14.7" barrel with carbine length gas, or a 16" barrel with mid-length gas. Colt unfortunately only offers a 16" barrel with carbine length gas.

Just because PSA claims they are built to the same specs as Colt, doesn't mean they are equal. There's a lot more to it than that. PSA had a lot of QC issues when they first came out a year or so ago, perhaps they have fixed them by now, just something to be aware of.

 

[powder]

Where's the negative owner reviews on the BM carbon? Link please.

 

[JustinJ]

Carbine gas systems are fine for casual use. Midlength and Rifle length gas systems are a bit more reliable, but a quality Carbine AR from Colt should be pretty reliable anyway.

What makes you think mid is more reliable? It may provide lighter recoil and possibly slightly less wear but is not more reliable. Some have also experienced issues with lower powered ammo like steel core in midlength AR's with 16" barrels.

 

[Captains1911]

What makes you think mid is more reliable? It may provide lighter recoil and possibly slightly less wear but is not more reliable. Some have also experienced issues with lower powered ammo like steel core in midlength AR's with 16" barrels.

Slightly less wear and tear may be considered more reliable. Some could argue though that the decreased dwell time of the mid-length, especially with a 14.5" barrel, could potentially decrease reliability. I prefer a mid-length for the fact that it adds 2 more inches of length to the handguard. I can't really feel any difference in the recoil between a car and mid.

 

[R H Clark]

Powder,I don't remember where I saw some broken recievers and neg reviews.I only did a quick google when I discovered the Carbon 15.A more in depth study may have revealed no more negetave comments than you could find about any product on the web.

 

[henschman]

Just because PSA claims they are built to the same specs as Colt, doesn't mean they are equal. There's a lot more to it than that. PSA had a lot of QC issues when they first came out a year or so ago, perhaps they have fixed them by now, just something to be aware of.

Do you have any evidence that PSA is falsely advertising the specs on their rifles? I have seen nothing of the sort. My PSA upper certainly seems to be everything they said it was. Also, can you elaborate on what you mean by "there's a lot more to it than that?" Are you saying there are other specs, higher than the mil specs, that Colt holds themselves to and PSA does not? That would be news to me. Also, what sort of QC issues did PSA have when they first came out? Forgive the inquisition, but this sounds like a lot of gossip.

 

[JustinJ]

Slightly less wear and tear may be considered more reliable. Some could argue though that the decreased dwell time of the mid-length, especially with a 14.5" barrel, could potentially decrease reliability.

While reliability is of course related to durability they are two different things. It could also be argued that the increased forces of a carbine length mean fouling is less likely to impair BCG movement. It could on the other hand be argued that there is more fouling caused by a carbine length.

I prefer a mid-length for the fact that it adds 2 more inches of length to the handguard. I can't really feel any difference in the recoil between a car and mid.

My carbine length 6720 has a mid-length hand guard. I could have done a rifle length as well.

 

[RatDrall]

All you have to do to get an AR light enough is avoid metal quad rails and M4 profile barrels. The only reason to get an M4 profile barrel is if you are mounting a grenade launcher to your rifle

Bravo Company, Colt, and Daniel Defense all make pencil profile barrels.

If you do want a rail, Midwest Industries just came out with a metal quad rail that weighs less than the plastic handguards it replaces, impressive

Just because a rifle only weighs a few ounces less doesn't mean it won't "feel" significantly lighter. Removing weight from the end of the barrel especially makes a rifle feel nimble. An AR with a pencil profile barrel (look for the specification .625" front sight block) and plastic handguards will be very light compared to most rifles.

S&W Sport. Meets your requirements. 6.5 lbs unloaded.

He asked for an AR15, not an AR looking gun minus the dustcover and forward assist.

 

[Captains1911]

Do you have any evidence that PSA is falsely advertising the specs on their rifles? I have seen nothing of the sort. My PSA upper certainly seems to be everything they said it was. Also, can you elaborate on what you mean by "there's a lot more to it than that?" Are you saying there are other specs, higher than the mil specs, that Colt holds themselves to and PSA does not? That would be news to me. Also, what sort of QC issues did PSA have when they first came out? Forgive the inquisition, but this sounds like a lot of gossip.

I'm really not in the mood to get into another AR-15 brand argument. I was just trying to provide information that may or may not be useful to the OP. Do some research and you will probably find some things that confirm my statement. I personally have no experience with PSA other than purchasing lots of ammo from them and their CS is top notch, so I'm sure if you do have a problem they will take care of it. A buddy has one of their uppers and as far as I know he hasn't had any problems with it, although he hasn't used it all that much. However, that doesn't change anything.

 

[HoosierQ]

I am not much of a fan of the whole "M4orgery" thing. This 6720LE Lightweight Carbine looks like just the ticket. Was at first put off by that rear sight but It kinda grew on me. Very nice. Would make a nice compliment to my full size 20" A2 model.

 

[TonyAngel]

Clark, there are other rifles that you may want to consider. Maybe Bravo Company or Spike's Tactical. They've both been around for a while and are considered to be among the better manufacturers.

Although I like the Colts, I really don't know that I'd say that they are a best buy right now. It has, admittedly, been a long while since I've shopped prices on complete rifles; but when shopping for a rifle, you should look for the features that appeal to you.

These days, most upper tier rifles come with hammer forged barrels. I do believe that a hammer forged barrel is better than one that has been pulled button rifled; simply by virtue of the manufacturing process.

Another turn off is that Colt doesn't have any mid length gas systems available.

My understanding of the evolution of this issue is that the original M4 has a 14.5" barrel and sports a carbine length gas system. In the civilian world, we cannot have a 14.5" barrel (without jumping through a couple of hoops), so manufacturers began making 16" barrels. The problem (if you want to call it that) is that they kept the same carbine length gas system.

What this means to the user is that the 16" barrel now has a longer dwell time and operates at a higher pressure than the original M4 did. This is just an opinion, but I feel that the carbine length gas system is totally appropriate for a 14.5" barrel, but a mid length gas system is more appropriate for a 16" barrel, due to the shorter dwell time and lower operating pressure offered by the mid length gas system.

I am only speaking in terms of possible wear. In use, I do have to admit that a mid length gas system on a 16" barrel shoots a little smoother, but the difference isn't night and day. It's nothing that can't be made up for with the use of a good muzzle brake.