User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 7:33:07 AM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 7:33:47 AM EDT
[#2]
Hey I am in the same boat as you, I wouldnt know why you would choose Colt as well when CMT/LMT makes a great product.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 7:34:24 AM EDT
[#3]
 IBTL |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 7:37:59 AM EDT
[#4]
As I understand it when people pay top dollar for Colt AR's or AR parts it's because of the QC Colt uses. People believe they will be getting a properly made product with Colt and that's not bad thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 7:41:47 AM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 7:42:48 AM EDT
[#6]
<Personal attack removed. --tbk1>
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 8:00:32 AM EDT
[#7]
 Oh, smack! That had to leave a mark. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 8:04:15 AM EDT
[#8]
Colt is a know comodity. People like to feel safe with their purchase. LMT does not offer a warranty as they dont sell full rifles. CMT has a big moose head on the side of its lower and I am not aware of any CMT barrels that are 1/7 chrome lined, milspec-ish barrels.
PS: I know its not a moose but it might as well be Bullwinkle to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 8:55:46 AM EDT
[#9]
This is what the Colt instructor told us about the Colt warranty-Send your rifle back, we will shoot it with military ball ammo, find out there is nothing wrong with it and ship it back to you stating that there is nothing wrong with it. Of course this was on ammo related problems, and they build the rifles to what the military wants, not what joe citizen wants. As for anything else, he stated they would look at it and if it needed fixed, they would fix it. Like I stated, I like Colt products, they do go the extra mile, but is it worth it? I have seen just as many Colt rifles fail, as any other ones mentioned. If CMT is in fact a contractor for Colt, why not buy their products at a greater savings? Same product correct? LMT was always rumored to have made contracted parts for Colt, but I could never confirm this? And who knows what your going to get next from Colt, since they have now produced rifles without chrome lined barrels. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:03:56 AM EDT
[#10]
I kind of douubt many people know what QC procedure Colt uses-name, name name. If I tell you that you can buy an "Aimlessmobile" from me which will perform as well as a 911 for 2/3s of the price and I'm actually a contractor for Porsche so basically it is a 911, would many people buy the Aimlessmobile over a Porsche? Maybe a small number of engineer/super car weenies who read up on the Aimlessmobile, but most people will say "A what? Instead of a Colt? Um it has a penguin on the side, a good gun needs a better animal than that on the side." When a bunch of us internet weenies went to Blackwater the instructors seems surprised by the number of us who have LMT uppers, I don't think either of them were familiar with the brand name. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:11:30 AM EDT
[#11]
I bought a colt because I wanted that extra insurance of haveing the Bbl and bolt tested. Intill another manufactuer does this then my options are limited.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:14:28 AM EDT
[#12]
Aimless,
I'm speaking more in general terms. People know that Colt QC for the most part is better than average so they feel that they will have a better than average chance of getting a good working gun. I was thinking more interms of the person who doesn't want to build themself or get a custom built AR and would rather go with the "BEST" factory made AR they can find. Now I'm not saying Colt is THE "BEST" but there's no arguing that it's one of the "BEST". BTW, I'm not a good example of a Colt Kool Aid drinker because I built my last AR on a Lauer/LMT lower with a CMT lower parts kit and it has a CMT upper with CMT BC group and CH and a Sabre Defence barrel...   Personally I believe if you select high quality parts and build your AR properly then you will be good to go! I also agree with you that we AR enthusiasts are ahead of the curve and we know how to get a quality AR put together without paying Colt prices. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:28:04 AM EDT
[#13]
Well said. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:31:26 AM EDT
[#14]
As far as I know, Colt is the only maker that PROPERLY stakes their carrier keys, and does the FULL AND PROPER "proof load followed by magnetic particle inspection" on EVERY bolt and barrel. Other folks seem to do MPI on a "sampling" basis, if at all, and I doubt if anybody else does the full proof/MPI sequence. Also, not many makers have the combo of features available on a Colt gun. For example, Stag/CMT will give you a chrome-lined M4 profile upper with an "F" FSB...but only in 1/9 twist.
We can argue about how much difference any of this makes in reality, but there are real differences between these makers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:33:27 AM EDT
[#15]
You just need to know where to look and sometimes be willing to wield a wrench and swing a hammer...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:34:17 AM EDT
[#16]
I think we're kind of saying the same thing. I own some Colts, and they are nice guns, but I would think that the AR you are describing that you just built should be just as good as my factory colts, based on the parts you used and assuming you know how all the little pieces go together |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:34:41 AM EDT
[#17]
I thought Stag/CMT offers MP testing as an option on their bolts? Also, can an average Joe get a MP tested ER Shaw barrel?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:36:54 AM EDT
[#18]
CMT does make parts for Colt, or at least has in the past. However, that does not mean that CMT = Colt. The parts that get sent to Colt - regardless of who the sub is - must meet Colt's requirements and pass their QC before being sent out. If you buy it directly from the sub, then the part or rifle does not go through that additional QC. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:38:01 AM EDT
[#19]
Thus, I buy their barrels and bolts for my builds. On the other hand, I will not pay a premium for some stamping or forging mark on the side of a chunk of aluminum. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:39:41 AM EDT
[#20]
Sure, you can spec every single part yourself and get a great gun. On a time cost basis, for me, it's a lot cheaper for me to just buy the whole thing from Colt to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:46:04 AM EDT
[#21]
I agree, I doubt there's much reason to pay a name premium for receivers - so long as they are finished properly and have all the correct holes/cuts/etc. in the correct places. That's a big if, though. What about FCG parts? I've "heard" good things about CMT FCG parts, but I'm still wary of non-Colt FCG parts due to hardness/metallurgy conistency. Telestocks and handguards? If you're using aftermarket stocks and foreends to begin with, it's a non-issue I guess - otherwise, there are significant differences, as I'm sure you know. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:47:52 AM EDT
[#22]
I think that mindset is what you see from alot of people. It isn't wrong by any means. There are people out there who want the best available and don't have the time/patience/want/need or skill to assemble their own. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 10:07:52 AM EDT
[#23]
Aimless summed it pretty well.
I drive a Ford, Why? Becuase I wanted a Ford. Yes a Dodge,Chevy or Toyota would have all done the same job and some for less, but I wanted the Ford. I would like to own a Colt someday, but cannot afford it right now. Thats not to say that my last build with a bushy lower, Stag LPK, RRA 2 stage, LMT upper 1/7 chrome lined M4 with CMT semi bolt group isnt as good as a Colt, but for what I want it works. If you want to buy a "Brand" name such as Colt, go for it and dont look back. If you want to piece a rifle togethor or buy another Mfg's that you feel is of the same quality, go ahead......you wont be the first one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 10:28:03 AM EDT
[#24]
Those both are commonly outsourced to CMT by Colt and they should have the same standard specs. The only thing that shouldn't be the same, is the process the bolt goes through after, and of course the barrel as CMT does not supply them for Colt. CMT does claim that they manufacture their parts to the latest military specifications, and they know first hand what those are. I trust them and their track record so far is pretty much flawless. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 10:30:11 AM EDT
[#25]
If not for the internet, how many of us would have even heard of LMT?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 10:35:13 AM EDT
[#26]
Lots of makers "claim" that their parts are mil-spec - the problem is that, upon closer scrutiny, they generally turn out to be deficient in some significant way. For example, Bushmaster throws around the term "mil-spec" rather liberally, yet has admitted that it doesn't MPI every bolt and barrel and does not parkerize the barrel under the FSB. They (and many others) also use cheap, weaker injection molded plastic telestocks and handguards, and collapsable lower receiver extensions ("buffer tubes") that are slightly larger than mil-spec diameter, which causes issues with quality aftermarket stocks like VLTOR. Also, I agree that the parts made by CMT for direct sale and those made for Colt "should" be the same - the problem is that we don't really know until the part is exposed to Colt's QC. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 10:39:06 AM EDT
[#27]
When I said military specifications, I meant materials, measurements, and finish. No AR is mil spec in whole. Reguardless of what Bushy claims, I don't see CMT as the type to be spreading false infromation about themselves around.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 10:47:13 AM EDT
[#28]
Few, probably. Just an observation, or are you making a point of some kind? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 11:12:45 AM EDT
[#29]
Well yes, obviously nobody here is buying a current production rifle that's mil-spec in every way, unless one happens to be a Class III dealer or LE agency. That's why I specifically addressed finish (parking under the FSB), dimensions (the non-spec telestock buffer tubes used by most) materials (cheap injection molded handguards and telestocks) and QC process (firing a proof load and then mag particle inspection). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 11:24:42 AM EDT
[#30]
A point, I guess. My first AR15 was a PWA, and before the internet came along, I had never, ever, ever heard anything about PWA. I just knew that I had an amazingly accurate rifle that had 'PWA' stamped on the lower reciever. Before the internet, I had never heard of buying separate upper recievers. I never was into military/LEO circles. When I bought my first AR, I was the ONLY person I knew who had one. When I bought my second one, I knew ONE other person who had one. So....I guess my point is that lesser-known companies would have died if not for the ability to spread the word of their products via the internet. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 12:34:42 PM EDT
[#31]
I will tell why I bought a Colt LE6920; it's because I wanted to buy a 1:7 rifle with M4 ramps, side sling swivel, M4 handguards and all the other (there is quite a list) M4 goodies. I looked at LMT, but I couldn't get a complete rifle, I would have to buy a lower, than get an upper-and the LMT 16" M4 style uppers I looked were nice but didn't have side sling swivels. I couldn't get a CMT rifle at all w/ 1:7 at the time IIRC. The LMT wouldn't been that astoundingly cheaper, really, as well. For that matter I couldn't get a 16" 1:7 Bushmaster at all.
If you are going to assemble your rifle, than I guess you are better off building it with CMT/LMT/Etc. parts. If you don't want 1:7 and all the M4 accessories, and that is true for many, or most, get a Bushmaster/RRA or assemble your own, you will save some money and get a nice rifle. But I am not into assembling rifles, I wanted a complete rifle. For a complete rifle with all the features I wanted the Colt was the only game in town. The QC stuff was just icing on the cake. I paid a little more, about 1250, all things considered, but I am very happy with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2005 9:08:51 PM EDT
[#32]
..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2005 3:49:52 AM EDT
[#34]
I hope you dont' apply that logic to your body armor. Come over to my forum and do a search or five. You'll soon see why. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2005 4:25:25 AM EDT
[#35]
i did a walk through with CMT's cheif QE, at CMT, about a year ago (give or take). as a result, i have a couple things to say: 1) CMT does in fact make parts for all the major players. 2) CMT does in fact also make true "milspec" stuff, you just aren't going to get any of it. they are going to theatre. 3) anyone who says company A makes a correct part, but company B does not (when they are talking about the major players) needs to spend less time on the internet because more than likely both company A and B's parts came off the same machine, at the same time, in the same factory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2005 4:40:02 AM EDT
[#36]
when you say "major players" who do you mean?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2005 4:42:08 AM EDT
[#37]
ABCR |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 9:23:36 AM EDT
[#38]
Nobody said otherwise as far as the first two points. However, as I said (and apparently some folks are hard of e-hearing), you can have a run of parts that all come from the same machine at the same time - but still end up with lemons that don't get weeded out until the "major player" applies its QC to the parts. Certain assemblies (like the carrier key and bolt) require particular attention that most companies either cannot, or do not, give to them. So, you may have the "same" carriers and keys from CMT going to everyone, but not everyone stakes them properly. Likewise, CMT may make bolts for everyone, but not everyone weeds out the bad ones by doing the full proofload and MPI on each and every one. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 10:15:30 AM EDT
[#39]
The only thing that throws a monkey wrench into this Colt "Superior" QC talk is when Colt turns out a lemon. Personally, I have seen two brand new Colt bolts fail because of a faulty extractor spring. I have also seen a NIB 6400C with a badly canted front sight. It was so bad it could not even be sighted in. We have seen numerous pictures of Colts with what many of you would call "Blems", even though I hate the word. Anybody who has been around knows what I'm talking about. I have owned three Colts myself and all were great shooters. The problem is I can find the same quality in other less expensive brands. I have also never had a single problem with any of them. So, why would I go back to paying more for the Pony? I get nothing in return except some extra resale value.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 10:20:44 AM EDT
[#40]
How does that throw a wrench in anything? Nobody - including me - has said Colt is infallible. The QC and raw materials that they use - and others do not - does not mean that every individual gun they produce is perfect. It DOES mean that failure/breakage of particular parts is less likely. As far as "blems" go, I don't know what that means either. I also don't know why people judge the quality of a combat gun on the finish and tightness of upper/lower fit, none of which affect function. Finish damage is also just as likely caused by shipping and handling, not by the manufacturer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 10:27:37 AM EDT
[#41]
Alot of people here are sick of the Colt elitism line that a few push around here. You want to see it???? Just go to the Colt section of the industry forum.  Some of that is the sickest group hug, circle jerk stuff I've read on these boards. On the flip side the Colt elitists are sick of people pounding on Colt. I do it for fun, but I found a raw nerve in some, so like a shark on a blood scent, I sensed weakness and haven't relented yet. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 10:34:51 AM EDT
[#42]
My attitude these days is "let people figure out shit for themselves".
Some will spend a lot getting there, others a little. In the end, most will figure it out. Some never will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 10:36:46 AM EDT
[#43]
That's the whole problem - people just assume I'm a pony-polishing, kool-aid drinking Colt snob because I've figured out that they do things that other makers don't do. I don't really consider myself a "Colt Elitist" or a "Colt Kool-Aid Drinker." I've simply seen firsthand (carriers keys coming loose due to improper or no staking), and heard from many others I respect, part failures in other makers that are directly attributable to improper materials or QC. It just so happens that Colt tends to do things properly, and others don't. I truly wish that other makers would start doing things like properly staking keys and running proofloads on every bolt and barrel to give us more options, because I also know firsthand that Colts are expensive and sometimes hard to obtain, and their politics suck. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 10:40:43 AM EDT
[#44]
I guess your not understanding me. I have seen Colts with every one of the problems you listed. So, how are they automatically "Doing It Right"? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 11:42:48 AM EDT
[#45]
is it just me, or are 98% of the quality issues that people use to differentiate between colt and everyone else happening within the Bolt and Bolt carrier?
It seems that if you take away the b/bc assembly, everything else falls under the 'parts is parts' adage.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 11:49:14 AM EDT
[#46]
If you had the choice of a RRA, Stag, Bushmaster, LMT and Colt as your next AR...
and they were all the same price (and assuming you couldn't resell the Colt and buy a Stag + ammo, etc)... who here wouldn't buy the Colt? That's starting to strike me as the bottom line. I hear people argue that someone else's gun might be just as good, or they're cheaper, or "for the price of a Colt I could buy brand X plus a case of ammo", etc. But I've never heard anyone say "brand X is better than Colt". If my assumption is correct that 99% of the people here would choose the Colt, that tells me that the perception among people who really know their AR's is that Colt is making the best guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 11:55:11 AM EDT
[#47]
I find it funny how all of these "less worthy" brands sell so many rifles and have so much customer satisfaction when they use "inferior parts".
Colt has had bolts mess up just like every other brand, and just like every other brand, they probably replaced them under warranty upon notification. I like the insurance of a MP tested bolt, but that does not mean it's invincible and the other companies are incapable of making a quality product. Say I had my RRA stuff MP tested, say it comes up clean. Does that mean my bolt is better than the rest of the RRA's already in rifles running perfectly fine without issue? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 12:31:09 PM EDT
[#48]
I've owned two Colt rifles, an SP1, bought in 1979/sold in 1984 [kick], and an R6601 bought in 1990. Both were excellant rifles. Only thing I hated about the 6601 was the exceptionally crappy trigger. It was horrible.
But I've recently purchased a CMT lower (Stag), two CMT lpk's and a CMT CAR stock. I'm so impressed with each item I think I'll be relying on CMT more and more for future builds. FWIW, the triggers in both CMT lpk's are far and beyond what was in my 6601. To the point I'm not sure I'm going to "upgrade" to anything "better" in these two rifles. I think my next build will be a SPR-ish thing and will likely use somebodies 2 stage in it. But I won't feel bad about using the standard CMT parts until I get the 2 stage trigger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 12:47:21 PM EDT
[#49]
Not really. That's one example that's easy for people to understand and see themselves, which is why I (and others) harp on it. Add to the list: -Barrels (because they are also part of the proofload/MPI test, and because Colt parkerized under the FSB) - Handguards and collapsable stocks (stronger, compression molded process, not injection molded, and proper LRE diameter on those collapsable stocks) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2005 2:21:15 PM EDT
[#50]
No. I don't like all of the non-standard crap and pins and blocks on today's Colts. I have pre-ban Colts when the only odd thing was the twin screw front take down. They are ok, no problems. The upper and lower were always too loose for my tastes, but WTF. I have Bushmasters as well and they do not have the upper/lower slack (I know it is no problem, but I don't have to have it, I'll pass on it) and they have the normal FC pins and a standard front take down pin. I have never had a Bushy bolt fail nor have I ever heard of anyone having one do so. Our IPSC club has shot 3 gun long befre IPSC did (since 1985) and I have seen a lot of rifles go through the matches. Colts are fine, I just like the Bushy as they seem more accurate to industry standards to me, I'll not loose any sleep on the MP testing. Please correct me if Colt now uses standard pins and has dropped the silly sear block. Bill who has both [  |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
