New FN 15 Carbine vs Colt LE6920

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JROC

Member
Joined
May 29, 2011
Messages
225
Location
SC
I'm no AR expert but I've shot a couple, and I would like to pick a M4 style AR up at some point. I'm kind of a Colt guy for my 1911's and whatnot, but I live in Columbia, SC where FN Manufacturing is located, and it's nice to buy a gun manufactured in your hometown IMO, and obviously FN's reputation speaks for itself. I've been wanting to buy a 6920 for a AR, but I'm really eying the new FN AR's. FN Manufacturing make most of the small arms weapons for the US Military including M4's so they now how to make a good AR I'm sure. My dad owns a PSA(another local business) M4 styled AR, and I believe some of it's parts are manufactured by FN including the barrel.

Anyways I was wondering if the real knowledgeable AR guys can tell me what are the similarities and differences between the new FN 15, and the highly regarded Colt LE6920 are? I know some of the basics like they both have a 1:7 barrel twist, and I like the fact that the FN has the carry handle where Colt has dropped it from the 6920, and I believe it's like a $100 part. But I'm looking for more of the finer details between the two that less knowledgeable AR guys would know about or know which is more or less desirable and whatnot. Is the FN MIL SPEC like the Colt?

http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/carbines/fn-15-series/fn15-carbine

http://www.colt.com/ColtLawEnforcement/Products/ColtLawEnforcementCarbine.aspx

Thanks,

Jesse
 
to give you the best answer I could give you, it depends on what FNUSA's "chart specs" are.

MPI/HPT testing and shot-peening, along with a properly staked gas key, are usually necessary. Same with the barrel, along with knowing if the steel is MIL-E certified.

The Colts have been transparent on those specs, so they get an automatic nod. If the FN rifles are made to the same standards, then it comes down to brand or price preference.
 
HOOfan_1 said:
Being a main military contractor FN has the official Technical Data Package just like Colt...I believe for a while that kept them from selling ARs to the public. I can't imagine they would produce a lower quality arm for commercial sale.

Here is a discussion about it

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?143446-Is-FN-preparing-to-release-their-own-AR/page3
Click to expand...
Having the TDP makes it illegal to sell a full spec AR15. Their AR is built to lower standards than the Colt.
 
Having the TDP makes it illegal to sell a full spec AR15. Their AR is built to lower standards than the Colt.
Click to expand...

Please provide supporting documentation of this.

Noveske, LWRC, and others do not follow the TDP, and I don't think anyone would say their rifles are built to a lower standard.
 
Look at the thread on M4Carbine linked above. Several guys have hands on the FN AR15 and say it's not built to milspec.

For a non milspec AR it's probably built well. I'm a big fan of FN having used many of their products in the Army. However because they got the TDP they legally can't use any milspec info from it.
 
But I though Colt also built AR's for our Armed Forces?

Maybe I should just build a similar AR. The main office for PSA is like 20 minutes from me. I'm thinking I can probably build a similar gun for noticeably cheaper. I've modded several of my guns, but never built one piecing parts I've chosen together. Is there any good online manuals for building a AR? My dad M4 style PSA AR from what I can tell is a great gun. It shoots real nice, and seems pretty accurate, and I don't think he's had any problems with it malfunctioning, but again I'm no big AR expert. I'm pretty sure the upper on his gun is suppose to be Mil Spec but I'm not positive. I know its barrel is manufactured by FN, has the 1:7 twist and all that Mil Spec M4 kind of stuff.
 
Last edited:
You can't sell a full mil spec m4 carbine commercially because mil spec includes the full auto (or burst fire) trigger group and even Colt doesn't sell THAT to the public when you buy an M4 at Wal Mart.
FN may or may not be = to Colt....dunno myself as I've never seen an FN M4.
 
I've been working on building my first ar from a lower receiver, parts kit, etc. There are some good videos on youtube on assembly. There are also guides on ar15.com towards the bottom of their home page.
 
Many 6920's were made with the carry handle, you can find one NIB if you look online.

FN makes good stuff, and has been making M-16's a long time. I suspect they can make a decent AR-15. I do NOT see M-4 style feed ramps listed in the FN specs.

If the price is similar it's probably a toss up. If the Colt is less expensive, buy a Colt. If the FN is hundreds less? I'd be tempted to try the FN.
 
Please provide supporting documentation of this.

Noveske, LWRC, and others do not follow the TDP, and I don't think anyone would say their rifles are built to a lower standard.
Click to expand...

It has to do with the way the contract for the M4 carbine was originally set up. To keep things simple, Colt created and holds the rights to the TDP for the M4 carbine and M16 rifle. The government can source these weapons from other manufacturers besides Colt, which requires the other companies to have a copy of the TDP to produce the weapons to proper specs. However, once they accept a copy of the TDP, the production agreement states that they can not use the copy of the TDP they received to build rifles for the commercial market.

Based on what I've heard from some industry people on other forums, it seems that FN has managed to get around this by buying many of the components for the rifles from various sources instead of making them in house. Reports from people who have handled to guns also state that they aren't up to the quality standards of a Colt 6920.
 
Auto426 said:
It has to do with the way the contract for the M4 carbine was originally set up. To keep things simple, Colt created and holds the rights to the TDP for the M4 carbine and M16 rifle. The government can source these weapons from other manufacturers besides Colt, which requires the other companies to have a copy of the TDP to produce the weapons to proper specs. However, once they accept a copy of the TDP, the production agreement states that they can not use the copy of the TDP they received to build rifles for the commercial market.
.
Click to expand...

Information on that seems to be all over the place....I've heard the Government now owns the TDP.

I think the point Fishbed was making however was that a company doesn't have to follow the TDP in order to make an excellent rifle. BCM, Daniel Defense, Noveske, LMT etc. are all considered top quality yet they are not following the TDP.

FN can have access to the TDP and use that for military contract weapons, and at the same time make commercial weapons which do not follow the TDP and are still excellent quality.

I don't think the FN commercial AR has been in circulation long enough for any definitive conclusion to be made about the quality. You can read this board for a couple of hours and find people willing to question the quality of ANY brand.
 
"However, once they accept a copy of the TDP, the production agreement states that they can not use the copy of the TDP they received to build rifles for the commercial market. "

Hobby machinist here. Can I ask a question of the mechanics of enforcement here? IIUC, the TDP consists of a set of dimensioned blueprints, material specs, and processing specs. So, for example, the receiver must be made of 7075 (probably a lot more detailed spec than that), the bolt must be made of Carpenter-158 heat treated to RC30 to RC35 and shot peened according to such a spec, and so on.

Let's assume I'm an AR manufacturer and I get the TDP and I want to use that knowledge to make civilian AR's, but the contract I signed forbids me from producing rifles that fully comply with the TDP.

So, instead of making, say the election port 1.567 plus/minus .002 long (or whatever the dimension is), I make mine with ejection ports that are 1.569 minus 0 plus .004. My rifles are clearly not made according to the TDP, but they're pretty close :). Heck, I could sell them as having 'enhanced ejection port for better reliability'.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: I don't see how a court could really enforce a contract that says 'you can make civvie ARs, just not to TDP specs', because 'not to TDP specs' is going to cover a range from a non functional rifle made from tinfoil to rifles so close as to be almost indistinguishable.
 
Anyways I was wondering if the real knowledgeable AR guys can tell me what are the similarities and differences between the new FN 15, and the highly regarded Colt LE6920 are?
Click to expand...

They are relatively parallel rifles, being a couple steps ahead of your usual DPMS/Wyndham/Bushmasters....that being said, I'm not a "chart" guy and all of the above rifles have served MANY shooters above and beyond their needs.

...and here is where the casual buyer needs to look more at their own purposes, rather than the rifles: paper, prairie dog hunting, L.E. work, SD/HD, competition. Those different aspects will account for the rounds you will mostly use/barrel build, carbine vs.mid-length. I know that's not a clean answer, but...put it down on paper and get back to us...
 
I know this is sort of off topic but have considered something from BCM? If you go with a 16" barrel you would probably be better of with a midlength gas system which I don't believe you will get from Colt or FN. If you want to remain true as possible to the M4, then go with a 14.5" and permanently attached flash hider, which you also won't get from Colt or FN (unless you're up for the NFA process).
 
Seems to me that too many folks get wrapped around the axle debating "mil-spec" and TDPs, the oft-quoted "Chart" and such (one reason why the AR/M4 forums get so contentious so often).

If I lived in SC, I'd buy an FN AR just because ... support my local economy and all that. Beyond that -- I believe FN puts out great products. (I love my FNX-45). I don't believe FN would foist a sub-par AR on the consumers; this is a company that has worked hard to maintain a good reputation.

Yeah, the AR market is saturated. But we need more quality makers.

Many 6920's were made with the carry handle, you can find one NIB if you look online.
Click to expand...
I have one, love it, and have left it bone stock to remind me of the M4 I was issued on active duty. While I believe that companies such as Noveske, Daniel Defense, BCM, LMT (and now, maybe FN?) are putting out awesome rifles, I feel confident with my 6920s.
 
Information on that seems to be all over the place....I've heard the Government now owns the TDP.
Click to expand...

Colt had a timed, sole-source production agreement with the military when it came to the M4. The sole-source provision recently expired, meaning that production of the guns can now be done by the lowest bidder who can meet the standards set forth in the TDP. Recently the military put out a bid and Remington won. Colt filed an appeal which led to the contract being put to bid for a second time, with FN winning it. FN will build the guns using the TDP, but they will have to pay Colt a royalty on each gun they produce since Colt is still the owner of the TDP.

I think the point Fishbed was making however was that a company doesn't have to follow the TDP in order to make an excellent rifle. BCM, Daniel Defense, Noveske, LMT etc. are all considered top quality yet they are not following the TDP.
Click to expand...

What seperates companies like BCM and Daniel Defense from FN in this case is that BCM and DD have never won a contract to produce M4 Carbines for the U.S. military. They aren't bound by non-compete agreements, so they are free to build guns as that follow the TDP as closely possible for the civilian market. Those companies have the reputation that they do because they try to at meet or exceed the TDP wherever possible, since much of what goes into it is common industry knowledge at this point.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: I don't see how a court could really enforce a contract that says 'you can make civvie ARs, just not to TDP specs', because 'not to TDP specs' is going to cover a range from a non functional rifle made from tinfoil to rifles so close as to be almost indistinguishable.
Click to expand...

I think the only people who really and fully understand what the agreements and production contracts contain are the lawyers that Colt employed to draft them up. My guess is that if such a case where brought against FN, a reasonable person test would likely be the deciding factor. If you build your guns with the same materials, testing, and only slight non-critical dimensional differences, then a reasonable person might assume that you are violating the non-compete agreement.

From what I understand, FN is trying to get around the agreement in a handful of ways. For instance, they are not producing the guns using the same tooling or assembly lines as their military contract guns. They are using materials that are different, such as a 6065 receiver extension in place of a 7075 receiver extension. And they are also deviating in the assembly area in ways such as loctiting the castle nut instead of staking it.
 
Last edited:
If I were buying today, I'd get a Colt (but make mine a 6720) just because you know what you are getting. If you want to wait to until the dust settles and see what kind of product FN is putting out, I don't think that would be a bad idea. FN makes some great products.
 
I don't understand how Colt can own the TDP when that information is available publicly - much like the M4's design in general.

If FN's rifle isn't up to spec, my guess would be that they aren't using their usual parts and testing them accordingly.
 
If the commercial FN falls short of the Colt 6920, as many have said, that would be a crying shame.

FN supplies milspec barrels to PSA, Spikes, BCM and others for commercial use, maybe they should buy back quality completed uppers from these companies to use on $1000 ARs if they are prevented from selling their own milspec parts first hand in the commercial market. Sure would be better than a lower quality gun like the Colt 6900 which was built by a third party to meet a low price point.

A company like FN that has done so much right doesn't need an embarrassing AR on the commercial market.
 
Hobby machinist here. Can I ask a question of the mechanics of enforcement here? IIUC, the TDP consists of a set of dimensioned blueprints, material specs, and processing specs. So, for example, the receiver must be made of 7075 (probably a lot more detailed spec than that), the bolt must be made of Carpenter-158 heat treated to RC30 to RC35 and shot peened according to such a spec, and so on.

Let's assume I'm an AR manufacturer and I get the TDP and I want to use that knowledge to make civilian AR's, but the contract I signed forbids me from producing rifles that fully comply with the TDP.

So, instead of making, say the election port 1.567 plus/minus .002 long (or whatever the dimension is), I make mine with ejection ports that are 1.569 minus 0 plus .004. My rifles are clearly not made according to the TDP, but they're pretty close :). Heck, I could sell them as having 'enhanced ejection port for better reliability'.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: I don't see how a court could really enforce a contract that says 'you can make civvie ARs, just not to TDP specs', because 'not to TDP specs' is going to cover a range from a non functional rifle made from tinfoil to rifles so close as to be almost indistinguishable.
Click to expand...

Excellent post! I read the thread over at M4Carbine.net, and it is a shame that FN decided (for whatever reason) to basically offer a S&W M&P15 for over $1100. Sadly, the minute details will go unnoticed on a lot of buyers, and they'll buy them thinking they're buying the best, latest rendition of a Mil-Spec M-Faux.

If all they needed to alter was one specification to not be stepping on the toes of the TDP, they would have been wise to simply make them all have Cold Hammer Forged barrels; the market would have loved them for it. Skimping out on barrel steel, receiver extension material and trigger suppliers really sours the whole deal at that price point.

Seems they just decided to toss out another overpriced commercial-spec AR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
PSA Mid vs carbine and FN vs wilson?
Replies
1
Views
364
Z-Michigan
Z
C
  • Locked
FN Herstal PBR XP?
Replies
1
Views
567
BsChoy
B
T
  • Locked
What makes an AR by Colt or FN any better than the AR kit I ordered?
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
6K
CoalTrain49
CoalTrain49
S
  • Locked
FN's new FNAR and Precision Shooting Rifle
Replies
6
Views
3K
jeff-10
J
G
  • Locked
Colt LE6920
Replies
19
Views
2K
SilentScream
S
Back
Top