What makes an AR by Colt or FN any better than the AR kit I ordered?

Status
Not open for further replies.
And here I sit about to embark on my own very first journey of AR building, having not fired one since an M-16A1 on an NG range in 1984, using components people seem to hate. :) I also don't think I will be going to war with this one when it's done, just having fun. I have a CZ BREN 805 for those "serious things".
Y4AOB38.jpg

Still aquiring parts and tools, and having fun doing it. OP, you go right on and have fun wtih your creation.
 
And here I sit about to embark on my own very first journey of AR building, having not fired one since an M-16A1 on an NG range in 1984, using components people seem to hate. :) I also don't think I will be going to war with this one when it's done, just having fun. I have a CZ BREN 805 for those "serious things".
View attachment 803219

Still aquiring parts and tools, and having fun doing it. OP, you go right on and have fun wtih your creation.
Looks like you're off to a good start!
 
I am indeed going to enjoy it. I now have decided to make my own oak or cherry wood lower vise. Maybe a few other tools to help assemble my new project. I doubt that any revolver I have has been military specification tested at the factory, but I'm confident relying on them to protect my family. With this kit I feel good to go as to the quality of the parts. as long as function is acceptable over time once I get it to the range. I've been given wise counsel on some changes that I should consider and will do so as cash flow allows. Thanks everyone for sharing thoughts and reflections. Don.
 
Last edited:
I know for concealed carry I don’t stake my life on anything less than my trusty LE6920 (said no one ever). The truth is we stake expensive hunts, weekend hunts, our lives, and the lives of family on plenty of non-government based firearms, knives, and baseball bats all the time.

Before dismissing all others as hobby grade or adding straw man rubbish about negligible round counts I think we should stick to facts we know. “Mil-spec” provides us useful information on the what and how it’s made and made of. Anything that veers off course of the norm, like a pistol build...won’t be adhering to the same standards for all parts. It can still be good, still be reliable, and still be worth staking your life on, I mean what if during the apocalypse someone steals your Colt and leaves you an PSA build)? Would you refuse to “go to war” with it?
 
Inspectors do NOT control quality. All they can do is assure the part is quality. The people actually manufacturing the parts and assemblies and the processes they use, control quality.

If a company cannot afford to control quality and processes, they certainly won't be able to afford their reject rate.

Exactly.
 
If a company cannot afford to control quality and processes, they certainly won't be able to afford their reject rate.

No disrespect meant, but by this very logic any company currently producing ARs and turning a profit would then be considered to be controlling both and we know that’s probably not always the case. We also know that sometimes is the case and yet, like Colt, they are continuously struggling to make margins. Merely pointing out that building a better (or worse) mousetrap won’t be determined by any economic numbers.
 
Pontificating the difference bewtween QA and QC isn’t really pertinent to the conversation, but since we’re apparently doing so - inspectors are QA, which stimulate feedback to QC. Lag vs. Lead measures of the same over-arching industrial and manufacturing Quality Management Systems.

It’s actually VERY common for QA efforts to go unresolved without QC corrections for MANY companies, regardless of industry. If the produced parts/products are inexpensive or otherwise low margin, the payback on investing in QC enhancement measures like new tooling, controls/instrumentation, equipment, personnel training, etc can and very often DOES outweigh potential payback, so companies simply choose to reject or rework a greater-than-zero volume of QA captured defect/defective events. Equally, it’s very common for companies to find a responsible financial solution letting some Quality defect or defective events pass through to the customer, taken as customer service warranty events, rather than implementing an airtight QA program. Many companies have built incredibly robust customer reputations and loyalties, despite a relatively high defect/defective rate hitting the consumer market, simply because their warranty and customer service support is so great - some of these have market leading revenue volumes and operating margins (Ruger, as a direct example).

Not even pharmaceutical companies live in a zero defect/defective, or even zero defective release world - even if they DO live in a world where 6 Sigma, 3.4 defects per million opportunities, is far too many. By production standards, even mil-spec Colts and FN’s have a much higher defect/defective tolerance than many products in other industries, just by their nature.

Not arguing at all with @Skylerbone here, but I’d make a clarification on the following:

“Mil-spec” provides us useful information on the what and how it’s made and made of.

“Mil-spec” often actually means as much or more about testing protocols and minimum acceptable expectations than it means about design, manufacturing method, or materials. What that means in terms of the actual product performance might mean a lot, or it might be meaningless. For example - many bolts can be bought which are sample tested instead of individually tested, some of higher alloys than mil-spec. Most of these are undeniably better than mil-spec, but they are not mil-spec. Equally, there are some items which really don’t seem to have much of a mil-spec categorization, and are likely the exact same item, for example hammer springs, but one branded product might have a Prancing Pony on the box, and the same spring in a different box might get disregarded for being “not mil-spec,” or “not colt.” Hammer and trigger pivot pins - how do you screw up a length of pin stock? Can you tell me with a straight face a Colt LPK with mil-spec pins are actually a better product than any of a hundred equivalent pins from other brands? Better than non-mil-spec KNS anti-walk pins? Is a Geissele Hi-speed NM trigger a lesser trigger than their SSA-E or SSF triggers? Do we know these military issued triggers were tested in the same manner as the conventional mil-spec M16/M4 triggers? Hundreds if not thousands of non-lined AR barrels are used in competition every year, under high cyclic rates (for semi-autos) and very high volumes of fire - is stainless really inferior to chrome lined in this application? Would chrome lined chambers and barrels really be superior? If yes, how have professional competitors NOT realized and witnessed it? Are billet lowers really inferior to forged mil-spec lowers?

I have Colts, have two FN’s currently (one a year the last two years), a couple DD’s, and have had an LMT. I have had to service just as many hiccups and make the same tuning refinements to any of them as I have any other AR I have built or bought. They’re less likely to have particular failures Jim Bob’s basement build might have if Jim Bob uses, for example, a $20 free float handguard and then dives every weekend into barricades like some Tactical Timmy, and the fact they were test fired at a factory is greater assurance they won’t have feeding issues which might befall a greater percentage of frankenbuilds, but once the kinks are straightened, there’s really not so much different about equally spec’d AR’s.

I certainly would take any of a dozen of my personal AR’s to battle before I took my Colt’s or FN’s. The upgrades made to mine are better suited for me than my Colt’s and FN’s, and don’t detract from the reliability of the action, so I put greater trust in my performance with them than the “mil-spec monsters” in my safe.
 
Everyone has their own personal standards of quality and how much they are willing to pay. I like Aero Precision because they have a good reputation for quality workmanship for the aluminum parts but I don't mind spending a little more on quality bolts and carriers. Tool Craft has a great reputation and I have managed to pick up a couple of Colt bolts I put in my carbines. Will the guns outlast a Colt or BCM or DD ?? I don't know but I know they will out last me then it will be my kids problems.

kwg
 
Much heat, little light for the O/P.

There seems to be some unspoken assumptions here for some.

First off, mil spec is basically to a) insure that the government won't get ripped off via substandard materials from government contractors (lowest cost bidder remember), b) satisfy whatever congressional statutes and appropriation bills specify in their text, c) can serve a barrier to new competitors to current government contractors which helps insure cushy contractor jobs post retirement for the folks writing the specs, d) serve the executive branch and its bureaucracy's desires--think Teddy and the 1903 rod bayonet here, e) provide the courts with a written standard so that disputes can be resolved. There are more factors than this as government procurement is a strange insular world. For example, here is the milspec for oatmeal cookies and chocolate covered brownies. http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-C/MIL-C-44072C_CHANGE-12FEB2003_24607/ I'll bet that you can make better tasting ones in your kitchen using a commercial mix even if the chocolate coating on your brownie melts in 150 degree temperatures or goes stale in a week.

Second, quite a few folks seem to be planning for a worst case Zombie Apocalypse where there are no laws for a decently long period of time as if they were Daniel Boone in Indian country. In which case, a Sherman Tank or a M-60 APC might be preferred as you have to sleep sometime (assuming that you can't afford an Abrams, Stryker, and Bradley). In that case, you should convert your home to a defensible bunker, be prepared to have outer perimeters of razor wire, minefields, etc. deployed, be totally self sufficient for up to one year on food, water, and medicine and so on. Conceal your bunker/home so that the neighbors aren't aware of what you have or that raiders will pass by and ignore as not a likely target. The mil-spec or not of your AR 15 is the least of your worries in these conditions. After all, a Raider might have a Barrett .50 and you never see the shot that takes you out from a great distance. Anyone planning this sort of situation might want to consider having multiple rifles as well as spare parts, maintenance tools, reloading ability, reconnaissance toys, etc. A community of like minded people would also be of paramount importance. Survival prepping of this sort is a way of life to some but the brand name on your rifle will probably have little or nothing to do with your ultimate destiny in such a world.

For most of us,
Using a rifle or a shotgun in self defense primarily will involve doing so inside the home or curtilage (the immediate area such as garages, etc. around the house). Vehicles are a separate case that involve laws etc. that can make it problematic (some states forbid loaded long arms in vehicles). Using these outside of the house can involve a whole lot of issues in ordinary self defense--penetration, distance, etc. Longarms are not easily concealed and in certain situations if used for intimidation factor might lay one open to brandishing charges if used outside the home. What is appropriate for law enforcement or the military to do is not appropriate for average Joe civilian. Joe civilian does not have qualified immunity that leo's possess nor does it have official government sanction of the military's actions (following lawful orders defense). Your tool is for surviving until hopefully the cavalry arrives (police etc.) not to destroy the enemy or arrest suspects.

Thus, extensive worries about whether the weapon will function in dirt, sand, rain, encountered in Vietnam jungles on a long patrol will not really be an issue unless you live in a tent or the great outdoors. If that is your worry in buying milspec, I can provide you with an even better solution--get a SMLE Enfield bolt action rifle--if it functioned in WWI trench conditions and the deserts of the Middle East, it will probably do just fine in your backyard and it has a ten round magazine. With a little practice it is relatively easy to get off 10 to 15 shots per minute and stripper clip reloading is available.

More seriously, relatively few shootings involve longarms by civilians and very few cases of self defense occur at 25 yards or more in the outdoors but these types of events are not the norm even for police. Juries tend to frown upon someone determining someone else's ill intent to do grievous harm at 100 yards, even in riot conditions and probably would frown upon someone acting like their house was Fort Apache and firing through loopholes at the raiding warriors.

What is my point for this post? Having a security plan dealing with likely issues including non-sexy stuff like a first aid kit, fire extinguishers, alarms, situational awareness, etc. outweighs whatever hardware specifics exist. SoCom guys would scare me even if they were bare handed because of their "software" upstairs--e.g. their training and evaluation of security situations skills.
 
It’s actually VERY common for QA efforts to go unresolved without QC corrections for MANY companies, regardless of industry. If the produced parts/products are inexpensive or otherwise low margin, the payback on investing in QC enhancement measures like new tooling, controls/instrumentation, equipment, personnel training, etc can and very often DOES outweigh potential payback, so companies simply choose to reject or rework a greater-than-zero volume of QA captured defect/defective events. Equally, it’s very common for companies to find a responsible financial solution letting some Quality defect or defective events pass through to the customer, taken as customer service warranty events, rather than implementing an airtight QA program. Many companies have built incredibly robust customer reputations and loyalties, despite a relatively high defect/defective rate hitting the consumer market, simply because their warranty and customer service support is so great - some of these have market leading revenue volumes and operating margins (Ruger, as a direct example).

The interesting thing to me is how Ruger has been lax with QC but still leads the market, as you said, but how quality issues played a big part in dooming Freedom Group Remlin.
 
Don’t take that as picking on Ruger, or negative criticism. I remember watching “Fight Club” years ago, and in one scene, the protagonist describes that if a product recall costs more than the total cost of expected settlements from the expected number of lawsuits, then they don’t do the recall. The scene is meant to describe a particular aspect of corporate greed.

However, in ALL COMPANIES, that exact same paradigm exists. It’s a bread-and-butter process for all Quality Management Systems - balancing the potential costs of quality control, quality assurance, warranty repairs/replacements, customer service, and claims is just another day at the office. For defects or defective units which have a consequence of death, the costs of claims/lawsuits are extremes, and reputation damage by “they knew and still sold it” events are very, very high, so it backflows to high cost, robust QC and QA programs. Quality Management programs for automobile, pharmaceutical, biomedical, transportation, food, etc are very robust and very expensive. Quality Programs for low consequence, low cost items - an example being no-name iPhone charging cords - are comparatively very low cost, low rigor. Most firearms components are somewhere in between.

How many aftermarket barrels are on the market which have not been proof fired? How much greater is the rate of “grenades” with these barrels vs. mil-spec proof fired barrels?
 
Don’t take that as picking on Ruger, or negative criticism. I remember watching “Fight Club” years ago, and in one scene, the protagonist describes that if a product recall costs more than the total cost of expected settlements from the expected number of lawsuits, then they don’t do the recall.

No, I get it. I'm a Ruger fan personally, and I understand why they do it. I'm just kind of wondering how a fairly high defect rate doesn't seem to faze Ruger while it basically killed Remington.

Is the difference just in the warranty? It's well known that Ruger will bend over backwards to make your gun right if it's broken and will probably send you some free mags for the trouble - that's just their business model. It's cheaper to fix or replace the 1 in 100 SR9s or Mini-14s or whatever that show up DOA to the customer rather than test all 100 of them. However, I assume Remington had a similar type of return policy / customer support - you pretty much have to if your MO is just "build guns with a minimum of labor and machine time and chuck them out the door".
 
Last edited:
Can you tell me with a straight face a Colt LPK with mil-spec pins are actually a better product than any of a hundred equivalent pins from other brands? Better than non-mil-spec KNS anti-walk pins?

Don't think there would be a need for anti walk pins, if that was the case.. Obviously there is an issue with simple pin manufacturing otherwise the anti-walk market segment wouldn't exist..:)
 
Some of the posts in this thread sound like they are not coming from someone that has lived in a manufacturing environment, especially not one with a government contract and all the BS that comes with it.

An AR15 is a lot like building engines and transmissions. I've never seen a single factory engine or trans that was optimal in terms of making power or fuel efficiency, but its always a compromise of making it reliable, cheap enough, actually possible to mass manufacture, easy enough to assemble by untrained people, and with the right apparent features for the public to accept it. Generally any improvement you want to make on a stock engine comes with a compromise. If it makes more power and is cheap, its probably not reliable. If it improves performance and is more reliable than the stock part its probably expensive. When you make a few hundred thousand of a thing you tend to work these things out. The M4's that are being made for the military are not that expensive, but they are reliable because of the rather loose clearances in the fire control group, receiver forgings, chambers, and good coatings in the barrel and bcg. Oem parts from the dealership are pretty much always perfect in fitment but aftermarket parts are a total crapshoot, even if they are much higher quality material or manufacturing method. So if you build an engine or transmission from totally aftermarket parts you can build a more precision end product with tighter clearances and better materials, but its gonna be expensive and you will need to machine or rework parts to make everything fit right. A factory GM transmission however will be loose and sloppy on clearances but they will all work because they have built their processes to make a million of them and get all the stackups right with minimum or no fitting, and then run it on a million dollar dyno to catch any assembly error's. So yes you can rebuild or buy an engine of better quality than a new GM crate motor or trans and for cheaper, but the GM one will work 99.9% of the time because of their QA and QC processes vs a single person hand assembling.
 
Is the difference just in the warranty?

Not just the Warranty. Remember, Ruger doesn’t have a Warranty.

It’s all a balancing act between at least 5 things:

Quality Control - the things you do to ensure you make a non-defective product

Quality Assurance - the things you measure to determine if the product you made is non-defective

Warranty - the promises you make to correct defective products if they make it to the customer

Customer Service - the overhead you spend to process customer wants and needs, what may or may not be warranty issues

If you have nearly-perfect QC, you have high production costs, but your QA program can be less costly, and you’ll have less warranty write backs and can hire less customer service folks to handle complaint cases.

Equally, if you spend a lot on nearly-perfect QA, less defects make it to market, so you have less warranty and customer service costs. But if your QC is weaker than your QA, you spend more in pre-market rejects, either as rework or defects which convert to scrap/waste.

In both cases, it’s almost hard to justify employing people for warranty and customer service, but you have to, so it stays on the books as under utilized overhead. In both cases, the extreme costs of the QA/QC programs and the non-value-add cost of the under-utilized Warranty and Customer Service Depts get rolled into the product price.

Most companies do NOT operate by either of the above. They have “good ” QC and QA, and then have “good” Warranty and Customer Service utilization. All of the costs are still rolled out to the customer, but the overall cost is lower because no single system has to be “nearly perfect.”

At the other end of the spectrum, you might have poor QC and QA, and then you face very high warranty and customer service expenses both in products and in personnel load. So then you see things like voluntary recalls where companies have to spend a LOT of money to fix a problem. This can completely ruin a product line, killing any chance for eventual payback. Taurus and the Millenium pistols are an example - they’ve tried to rebrand the G2s - which is a Millenium G2, but without the stigma of the Millenium label, in an attempt to boost sales and recover losses without abandoning the design and production investment. They’ve dropped prices through the floor to increase sales. Personally, I expect that won’t last long, they’ll float themselves through a re-engineering and marketing strategy phase, get out of some inventory to keep the lights on, and then launch a new design. Huge customer service and warranty expenses, with a huge business impact to their product management strategy, all rolled together to illustrate the cost of weak QA/QC.

Another unfortunate example is the Sig P320. Sometimes a business has to do expensive things to accommodate customer demands even if the customer doesn’t really know what they’re asking, or why. The Sig QA program included a standard drop safety protocol, which it passed (because their QC program included a Quality of Design process meant to pass that QA protocol), but then once it’s on the market, a non-standard protocol was applied, which it failed. So now Sig has to overcome a moving target problem which affects their sales potential. So they issue a Voluntary Recall (because you can’t force individual Americans to surrender their property) to allow them to warranty their own design against the harsher protocol, even though the design sufficiently surpassed the standard protocol as expected. Despite having a great QA/QC program to begin with, they are spending a LOT of money effectively as Warranty and Customer Service, and changing their QC/QA standards for future products. It’d be much like telling Ruger - hey, the SP101 blows up if you put 353 Casull loads in it, you need to redesign the SP101, then they respond by changing the SP101 design to the size of the 6 shot Redhawk, and making it a 5 shot to offset the locking bolt notches.

So circling this back to Colt/FN/Mil-spec to non-mil-spec...

No product on the market is released without some Quality Management System backing it. Ruger AR-556 trigger groups aren’t inherently weaker just because they don’t source Colt hammer springs and stamp “mil-spec” on the box. Ergo grips aren’t inherently weaker just because they didn’t come in a mil-spec LPK from DD.
 
Don't think there would be a need for anti walk pins, if that was the case.. Obviously there is an issue with simple pin manufacturing otherwise the anti-walk market segment wouldn't exist..:)

Unitized drop-in triggers is one reason for anti-walk pins to exist. Doesn’t work to use mil-spec pins with Timney, TriggerTech, CMC, POF, RISE, Nord, AR Gold, ELF, Wilson, etc etc etc unitized triggers.

I’ve seen many pins with spring grooves too shallow to capture the hammer pin retaining spring or hammer spring, 2min with a file and a hand drill fixes that. But mil-spec pins don’t work for all non-mil-spec triggers. In literally hundreds of AR’s through my hands, I’ve not seen a need for anti-walk pins with compatibly designed FCG’s. So Anti-walk pins in those applications are only “better” in the mind of the consumer. I’ve had screws in anti-walk pins come loose and let the pins walk more often than I have had grooved pins with seated springs walk away.
 
Much heat, little light for the O/P.

There seems to be some unspoken assumptions here for some.

First off, mil spec is basically to a) insure that the government won't get ripped off via substandard materials from government contractors (lowest cost bidder remember), b) satisfy whatever congressional statutes and appropriation bills specify in their text, c) can serve a barrier to new competitors to current government contractors which helps insure cushy contractor jobs post retirement for the folks writing the specs, d) serve the executive branch and its bureaucracy's desires--think Teddy and the 1903 rod bayonet here, e) provide the courts with a written standard so that disputes can be resolved. There are more factors than this as government procurement is a strange insular world. For example, here is the milspec for oatmeal cookies and chocolate covered brownies. http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-C/MIL-C-44072C_CHANGE-12FEB2003_24607/ I'll bet that you can make better tasting ones in your kitchen using a commercial mix even if the chocolate coating on your brownie melts in 150 degree temperatures or goes stale in a week.

Second, quite a few folks seem to be planning for a worst case Zombie Apocalypse where there are no laws for a decently long period of time as if they were Daniel Boone in Indian country. In which case, a Sherman Tank or a M-60 APC might be preferred as you have to sleep sometime (assuming that you can't afford an Abrams, Stryker, and Bradley). In that case, you should convert your home to a defensible bunker, be prepared to have outer perimeters of razor wire, minefields, etc. deployed, be totally self sufficient for up to one year on food, water, and medicine and so on. Conceal your bunker/home so that the neighbors aren't aware of what you have or that raiders will pass by and ignore as not a likely target. The mil-spec or not of your AR 15 is the least of your worries in these conditions. After all, a Raider might have a Barrett .50 and you never see the shot that takes you out from a great distance. Anyone planning this sort of situation might want to consider having multiple rifles as well as spare parts, maintenance tools, reloading ability, reconnaissance toys, etc. A community of like minded people would also be of paramount importance. Survival prepping of this sort is a way of life to some but the brand name on your rifle will probably have little or nothing to do with your ultimate destiny in such a world.

For most of us,
Using a rifle or a shotgun in self defense primarily will involve doing so inside the home or curtilage (the immediate area such as garages, etc. around the house). Vehicles are a separate case that involve laws etc. that can make it problematic (some states forbid loaded long arms in vehicles). Using these outside of the house can involve a whole lot of issues in ordinary self defense--penetration, distance, etc. Longarms are not easily concealed and in certain situations if used for intimidation factor might lay one open to brandishing charges if used outside the home. What is appropriate for law enforcement or the military to do is not appropriate for average Joe civilian. Joe civilian does not have qualified immunity that leo's possess nor does it have official government sanction of the military's actions (following lawful orders defense). Your tool is for surviving until hopefully the cavalry arrives (police etc.) not to destroy the enemy or arrest suspects.

Thus, extensive worries about whether the weapon will function in dirt, sand, rain, encountered in Vietnam jungles on a long patrol will not really be an issue unless you live in a tent or the great outdoors. If that is your worry in buying milspec, I can provide you with an even better solution--get a SMLE Enfield bolt action rifle--if it functioned in WWI trench conditions and the deserts of the Middle East, it will probably do just fine in your backyard and it has a ten round magazine. With a little practice it is relatively easy to get off 10 to 15 shots per minute and stripper clip reloading is available.

More seriously, relatively few shootings involve longarms by civilians and very few cases of self defense occur at 25 yards or more in the outdoors but these types of events are not the norm even for police. Juries tend to frown upon someone determining someone else's ill intent to do grievous harm at 100 yards, even in riot conditions and probably would frown upon someone acting like their house was Fort Apache and firing through loopholes at the raiding warriors.

What is my point for this post? Having a security plan dealing with likely issues including non-sexy stuff like a first aid kit, fire extinguishers, alarms, situational awareness, etc. outweighs whatever hardware specifics exist. SoCom guys would scare me even if they were bare handed because of their "software" upstairs--e.g. their training and evaluation of security situations skills.


Boom Boom, you can get all the zombie survival info you need Sunday evening watching AMC's "THE WALKING DEAD." :what::confused:

You don't need mil-spec equipment if the scriptwriters are on your side. :neener::p ...... o_O
 
Boom Boom, you can get all the zombie survival info you need Sunday evening watching AMC's "THE WALKING DEAD." :what::confused:

You don't need mil-spec equipment if the scriptwriters are on your side. :neener::p ...... o_O

You are absolutely right but I date back to Night of the Living Dead and stuff. We did not know as much about zombies and zombie disposal as people do today. :uhoh:
 
I don't own an AR but I've seen reliable rifles from S&W and Daniel Defense. That said I buy a lot of Colts and S&W's.

I like to monkey around doing mods to rifles so if you are so inclined a kit will for sure get you into what makes the rifle tick, fun stuff. Some people don't want to mess around smithing on a firearm when things get boogered up so a kit might not be right for them. I've rebuilt the bolt on my M1 carbine which qualifies me as someone who likes to take things apart and put them back together. I personally wouldn't have problems sourcing parts and doing the assembly on an AR.

The biggest advantage I can see to a Colt or any rifle from a company with a good reputation would be the service. Short of that I'm not sure there would be a lot of difference.
 
Last edited:
Why wouldn't they?

I suppose they might go +mil-spec, but then they'd raise their price. Best not to give them any ideas.;)

Because only rifles made for the military under contract are Mil Spec. At least that's my understanding of the term. The only people that have Colt's Technical Data Package is Colt and FN. I suspect a 6920 is close the Mil Std however but nobody really knows except Colt. :D

Anyway, if I were to buy an AR it would probably be a Colt because I like paying more money than I need to just to be cool.:cool: That's always been an affliction.
 
Last edited:
Colt 6920's are only $800, roughly $200 more at retail than most budget brands. Folks are making them sound like they are some kind of premium brand. They are a known quality at a fairly reasonable price. I've never seen a new Colt LE series rifle with an issue that affected function, I've seen MANY budget brand rifles that have had issues functioning straight out of the box.
 
You really think they could afford to retool after loosing the contract?

No. I suspect they build them the same way they always did without the Gov't inspection and documented testing that the military requires. No point in adding cost if you don't have to. The reason that Colt did that for the military is the military likes standards and inspections. Makes them feel like they're driving the bus so to speak.

I'm not sure if you remember the contracted 1911 debachale that the USMC had with Colt a few years ago. The finish wore off of those pistols in a matter of a few months and Colt got them all back. They were too expensive to repair so Colt just sold them to a dealer and he auctioned them off on GB. Colt obviously reached some agreement with the military but I don't think anyone except Colt and the military knows what that was. I do know that thousands of those pistols were sold on GB for $1500-$2500 tho.

Like I said, I think Colt builds a good product. I have a bunch of them in my safe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top