User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 4:08:16 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hahah - seriously ? All the dumb shit getting posted in this thread and I'm the asshole ..  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Holy fuckin' derp up in here ...  Go away, the adults are speaking.  Why don't you use your words like a big boy, and tell us what's got you so upset. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 4:12:47 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So it uses a barrel bushing instead of a barrel nut? Now I'm curious what type of socket you use to tighten it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I believe the barrel nut threads are inside of the extended portion of the receiver. https://soldiersystems.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/img_2925.jpg So it uses a barrel bushing instead of a barrel nut? Now I'm curious what type of socket you use to tighten it. Like this one |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 4:13:55 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is the M4E1 one piece or is the extension screwed on somehow? I've never seen one in person. One piece. The barrel nut is threaded externally and screws into the receiver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 4:16:54 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hahah - seriously ? All the dumb shit getting posted in this thread and I'm the asshole .. Didn’t and wouldn’t call you an asshole. It’s my habit to never say in writing via anonymous internet anything I wouldn’t say I person. I’m my mind your a fellow gunnut that for some reason dropped in, slung some snark and left. I’m a ‘fairly’ well read Colt buff but I learn and get corrected (another form of learning) in these forums constantly. How often is does a major OEM make changes to their bread and butter? And the rathole goes deeper. How long before M4 receivers are ‘old style’. It just keeps going. I am aware of the Colt hate club and they need a place to opine as well. But I’m not sure we’re discussing ‘better’ or most modern. I think some of us are interested in the impact this may have and it’s very interesting. I’m not in the market but I’ve upped my Fo price from $1200 to $1500 as I have personal use with these uppers and receivers in their big bores. TLDR/ I’m an old fart and wouldn’t call you an asshole.  Unless it was in person so you could react accordingly. Us old farts find minutiae in engineering fascinating. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 4:17:18 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why don't you use your words like a big boy, and tell us what's got you so upset. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Holy fuckin' derp up in here ... Go away, the adults are speaking. Why don't you use your words like a big boy, and tell us what's got you so upset. People in this thread : Eeww gross - ?? looks like most other ar-15's , no ? Colt sucks - I know right , cause have a proven , reliable rifle is terrible ... Colt is behind the times - maybe a little , however ahead of many others in this aspect . Stupid carbine gas , hard pass - derrrrrrrrrrrrr .... Colt sucks ..... Not worth the $$ - ambi lower , free float rail , Colt factory parts ... If people keep posting dumb shit we can keep going . OP if you really want to talk technical there are places here for that - GD is for sure not fucking one of them ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 4:18:24 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I believe the barrel nut threads are inside of the extended portion of the receiver. https://soldiersystems.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/img_2925.jpg So it uses a barrel bushing instead of a barrel nut? Now I'm curious what type of socket you use to tighten it. Like this one So there's only one guy who makes these wrenches, and they're over $100? All this extra cost for an anti-rotation tab like SLR already uses? I'll just stick with SLR, personally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 4:19:56 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn't and wouldn't call you an asshole. It's my habit to never say in writing via anonymous internet anything I wouldn't say I person. I'm my mind your a fellow gunnut that for some reason dropped in, slung some snark and left. I'm a 'fairly' well read Colt buff but I learn and get corrected (another form of learning) in these forums constantly. How often is does a major OEM make changes to their bread and butter? And the rathole goes deeper. How long before M4 receivers are 'old style'. It just keeps going. I am aware of the Colt hate club and they need a place to opine as well. But I'm not sure we're discussing 'better' or most modern. I think some of us are interested in the impact this may have and it's very interesting. I'm not in the market but I've upped my Fo price from $1200 to $1500 as I have personal use with these uppers and receivers in their big bores. TLDR/ I'm an old fart and wouldn't call you an asshole. Unless it was in person so you could react accordingly. Us old farts find minutiae in engineering fascinating. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Hahah - seriously ? All the dumb shit getting posted in this thread and I'm the asshole .. Didn't and wouldn't call you an asshole. It's my habit to never say in writing via anonymous internet anything I wouldn't say I person. I'm my mind your a fellow gunnut that for some reason dropped in, slung some snark and left. I'm a 'fairly' well read Colt buff but I learn and get corrected (another form of learning) in these forums constantly. How often is does a major OEM make changes to their bread and butter? And the rathole goes deeper. How long before M4 receivers are 'old style'. It just keeps going. I am aware of the Colt hate club and they need a place to opine as well. But I'm not sure we're discussing 'better' or most modern. I think some of us are interested in the impact this may have and it's very interesting. I'm not in the market but I've upped my Fo price from $1200 to $1500 as I have personal use with these uppers and receivers in their big bores. TLDR/ I'm an old fart and wouldn't call you an asshole. Unless it was in person so you could react accordingly. Us old farts find minutiae in engineering fascinating. You just replied to what I said in a manner that was funny to me . And I am an asshole , no argument from me ! Generally I am easy going and get along well though . Not a yute here either . also , see my last post .. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 4:21:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So there's only one guy who makes these wrenches, and they're over $100? All this extra cost for an anti-rotation tab like SLR already uses? I'll just stick with SLR, personally. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I believe the barrel nut threads are inside of the extended portion of the receiver. https://soldiersystems.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/img_2925.jpg So it uses a barrel bushing instead of a barrel nut? Now I'm curious what type of socket you use to tighten it. Like this one So there's only one guy who makes these wrenches, and they're over $100? All this extra cost for an anti-rotation tab like SLR already uses? I'll just stick with SLR, personally. That's just the recent I saw on GB . Between the barrel locked up in the receiver and the rail locked on to the receiver shit's solid . eta : didn't see the description saying he made them and sold through Brownelled ... D.Wilson's site doesn't show them . |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 4:22:18 PM EDT
[#9]
Thought about but instead I purchased a 1981 Colt SP1 Carbine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 4:39:08 PM EDT
[#10]
They really should have gone with the mid-length barrel they're already using on the 6960.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 5:48:09 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok, the forwardly EXTENDED part of the RECEIVER that is like a trunnion, has a tab or fin that has two semicircular cutouts that the two screws that "pinch" the handguard together also keep it from rotation and secure it to the EXTENDED UPPER RECEIVER Thanks to @texassggie2005 for the pic https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/43129/hHzIEBl_png-2511872.JPG those two cutouts are where the rail attachment screws mechanically lock the rail to the extended upper receiver Alright that’s totally my bad then. The pictures I had seen didn’t illustrate that. Should be pretty secure then. I wish key’d uppers would become standardized and normal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 5:59:16 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryThe Colt design appears to be the flacid uncircumcised version of Aero's M4E1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 6:02:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Alright that’s totally my bad then. The pictures I had seen didn’t illustrate that. Should be pretty secure then. I wish key’d uppers would become standardized and normal. SLR uses an anti-rotation insert that fits over the gas tube right next to the upper receiver. The only way it will rotate is if you somehow manage to shear the gas tube completely. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 6:08:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is the M4E1 one piece or is the extension screwed on somehow? I've never seen one in person. The upper is solid and the barrel nut threads inside the chunky bit so the handguards have zero chance of torquing the barrel. IIRC the internal diameter of the HG's is 1.5" so most cans will fit underneath. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 6:09:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was wondering what happened to the LE901. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: LE901, and their 7.62x39 variant that those retards never offered here in the states. That would’ve been massively popular, seeing as the rifle’s built around 308, and downsized to 7.62x39. May fuck be upon LMT for their BS suit against Colt that resulted in the MARC crap. I remember the 901 going for something like $1400-$1600 years ago, now they’re over $3000 when you can find them. Although, KAC did make a better 7.62 AR that took AK mags, not sure about the bolt life, but it had a nifty AR mag release button. Supposedly, they made less than a dozen of them, one left in the Knights vault, the others in a US Navy armory somewhere. Been a long time since I looked it up. I was wondering what happened to the LE901. Basically discontinued, aside from their contract rifles. Think it’s been replaced by their “modular” rifle, same lower, just a more standard upper with a m-lok rail. LMT sued Colt for patent infringement, claiming the 6940 two-piece upper design was a rip off of their MRP upper. LMT won, forcing Colt to pay royalties for each upper sold. I believe LMT paid someone off, or Colt abandoned the case. It’s the only answers that make sense, Colt’s “monolithic” upper isn’t a true single piece, and uses a more traditional barrel nut, rather than the clamp design that LMT uses. They’re different enough that anyone with two brain cells can tell that they were designed independently from one another, and with different philosophies. The 6940 was specifically for military customers, had a removable lower rail to allow for mounting an M203. IIRC, Colt began work on the 6940 and the 901 for SOCOM’s SCAR trials, but weren’t able to complete the 308 version of the 901 in time, hence FNH ended up winning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 6:12:01 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Isn’t the rail, a like Geiselle Sooper Doodie? Yup, was my first thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 7:51:49 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Alright that's totally my bad then. The pictures I had seen didn't illustrate that. Should be pretty secure then. I wish key'd uppers would become standardized and normal.  I got a hands on with three or four of them a month ago. I'm not a dedicated Colt fanboi or anything, but I really like this setup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 10:41:36 PM EDT
[#18]
I have no idea in hell how I missed This thread.
The pros have been dissecting this thing since May.  I think I failed so hard they wouldn’t even answer my SOS. Lots of good info from credible sources in that thread. This should help envision the setup.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 8:51:17 AM EDT
[#19]
They need to bring back the 901 or cm762 or m7 carbine. The 901 was stupid accurate but overall it was a soft for 308 recoil, and with a brake it feels like a normal carbine gassed m4.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 9:59:56 AM EDT
[#20]
There isn't a whole lot there that a competiting company sells cheaper. I think Id rather have a FN.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 10:08:28 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There isn't a whole lot there that a competiting company sells cheaper. I think Id rather have a FN. I dunno what marketing genius told Colt they could charge JP-15 prices for Walmart koality but they should have their ass removed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 10:17:16 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Colt design appears to be the flacid uncircumcised version of Aero's M4E1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 10:24:25 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There isn't a whole lot there that a competiting company sells cheaper. I think Id rather have a FN. Not sure why people hate this thing so much. Oh, that's right, because it's a Colt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 10:26:50 AM EDT
[#24]
Solid design but 5-10 years too late.
Please don't tell me they are using an M4 barrel profile under that handguard...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 10:28:15 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd call it a streamlined version that doesn't need eight screws to attach a rail the diameter of a 24oz beer can. If the barrel nut fully supported the receiver's foreskin I'd agree since it would make it more rigid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 10:28:36 AM EDT
[#26]
Eh.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 11:01:21 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They need to bring back the 901 or cm762 or m7 carbine. The 901 was stupid accurate but overall it was a soft for 308 recoil, and with a brake it feels like a normal carbine gassed m4. You are correct in my experience but I can’t articulate why or if it’s just ‘feels’. I’m a 308 AR junkie including a monolithic rail GAP10 and a DPMS A2. That’s just an example of the ‘spectrum’ of big bore AR’s with several OEMs in between the two. The 901 and CM762 both have a softer impulse with the CM762 (big bore upper copy of the new M5) being the most comfortable. It’s gassy suppressed but I haven’t done any charging handle swaps or modifications to try and help in that regard. I am not a fan of the ambi receiver design. The area of metal for all the roll pins look like a potential fail point. Maybe it’s just cosmetic as I’ve not heard of any failures but there’s not exactly a mass of these receivers in the field. I’ll be waiting to see if it is a weak point. Makes me wonder how many folks will bust the receiver by attempting roll pin installation ‘unsupported’. And, it’s not like the trigger guard as there is no means for supporting on opposite side of the hole. I’m guessing most people who use the pressure methods as opposed to hammer methods will be okay but there will be some unfortunate learning curves for our new Legos. Honestly I’d love to have the new A5 but I’ll wait and see for a year or three. I agree this new design doesn’t offer much in tech advancement or do things better than any other quality AR and it’s unproven to be a SHTF platform. Yet it is interesting to see how the industry may react. Imitation being the ultimate yadda, yadda. My PSA does 99.87% of what my LWRC does yet we get bored with the known (unless your an operator). Here’s an example of the ambi control roll pin points I’m concerned with. Although none are load bearing the material is minimal for error. Time and hard use by hard men will ultimately be the jury.  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 11:54:47 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are correct in my experience but I can't articulate why or if it's just 'feels'. I'm a 308 AR junkie including a monolithic rail GAP10 and a DPMS A2. That's just an example of the 'spectrum' of big bore AR's with several OEMs in between the two. The 901 and CM762 both have a softer impulse with the CM762 (big bore upper copy of the new M5) being the most comfortable. It's gassy suppressed but I haven't done any charging handle swaps or modifications to try and help in that regard. I am not a fan of the ambi receiver design. The area of metal for all the roll pins look like a potential fail point. Maybe it's just cosmetic as I've not heard of any failures but there's not exactly a mass of these receivers in the field. I'll be waiting to see if it is a weak point. Makes me wonder how many folks will bust the receiver by attempting roll pin installation 'unsupported'. And, it's not like the trigger guard as there is no means for supporting on opposite side of the hole. I'm guessing most people who use the pressure methods as opposed to hammer methods will be okay but there will be some unfortunate learning curves for our new Legos. Honestly I'd love to have the new A5 but I'll wait and see for a year or three. I agree this new design doesn't offer much in tech advancement or do things better than any other quality AR and it's unproven to be a SHTF platform. Yet it is interesting to see how the industry may react. Imitation being the ultimate yadda, yadda. My PSA does 99.87% of what my LWRC does yet we get bored with the known (unless your an operator). Here's an example of the ambi control roll pin points I'm concerned with. Although none are load bearing the material is minimal for error. Time and hard use by hard men will ultimately be the jury. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/467962/4523705D-2AD3-4F70-BA0E-E75280945AF3_jpe-2512770.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/467962/81A1D47C-AD6D-43A2-9846-29DFA7476D81_jpe-2512773.JPG I hate the weight, and I'm also surprised to see people say they are soft shooting. The ones I've shot beat you up worse than a G3. Maybe Colt tweaked them after the initial release. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 12:43:50 PM EDT
[#29]
Should have paired it with the 6960 upper or offered the lower as a stand-alone unit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 12:50:22 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Basically discontinued, aside from their contract rifles. Think it’s been replaced by their “modular” rifle, same lower, just a more standard upper with a m-lok rail. LMT sued Colt for patent infringement, claiming the 6940 two-piece upper design was a rip off of their MRP upper. LMT won, forcing Colt to pay royalties for each upper sold. I believe LMT paid someone off, or Colt abandoned the case. It’s the only answers that make sense, Colt’s “monolithic” upper isn’t a true single piece, and uses a more traditional barrel nut, rather than the clamp design that LMT uses. They’re different enough that anyone with two brain cells can tell that they were designed independently from one another, and with different philosophies. The 6940 was specifically for military customers, had a removable lower rail to allow for mounting an M203. IIRC, Colt began work on the 6940 and the 901 for SOCOM’s SCAR trials, but weren’t able to complete the 308 version of the 901 in time, hence FNH ended up winning. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: LE901, and their 7.62x39 variant that those retards never offered here in the states. That would’ve been massively popular, seeing as the rifle’s built around 308, and downsized to 7.62x39. May fuck be upon LMT for their BS suit against Colt that resulted in the MARC crap. I remember the 901 going for something like $1400-$1600 years ago, now they’re over $3000 when you can find them. Although, KAC did make a better 7.62 AR that took AK mags, not sure about the bolt life, but it had a nifty AR mag release button. Supposedly, they made less than a dozen of them, one left in the Knights vault, the others in a US Navy armory somewhere. Been a long time since I looked it up. I was wondering what happened to the LE901. Basically discontinued, aside from their contract rifles. Think it’s been replaced by their “modular” rifle, same lower, just a more standard upper with a m-lok rail. LMT sued Colt for patent infringement, claiming the 6940 two-piece upper design was a rip off of their MRP upper. LMT won, forcing Colt to pay royalties for each upper sold. I believe LMT paid someone off, or Colt abandoned the case. It’s the only answers that make sense, Colt’s “monolithic” upper isn’t a true single piece, and uses a more traditional barrel nut, rather than the clamp design that LMT uses. They’re different enough that anyone with two brain cells can tell that they were designed independently from one another, and with different philosophies. The 6940 was specifically for military customers, had a removable lower rail to allow for mounting an M203. IIRC, Colt began work on the 6940 and the 901 for SOCOM’s SCAR trials, but weren’t able to complete the 308 version of the 901 in time, hence FNH ended up winning. The lawsuit seemed bs, there isn’t much that colt hadn’t experimented with in the 60-90’s. I think a lot of ideas never got patented. Seems the mrp should expire soon I would think? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 3:16:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Solid design but 5-10 years too late. Please don't tell me they are using an M4 barrel profile under that handguard...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 4:08:08 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The lawsuit seemed bs, there isn’t much that colt hadn’t experimented with in the 60-90’s. I think a lot of ideas never got patented. Seems the mrp should expire soon I would think? Anytime business fight to that extent I root for the little guy unless I have some inside info. To take on Colts legal team and then ‘win’ there was obviously some justification. At least in my mind.  As it is, we got ‘both’. The LMT design with the Colt name. My 6940s are some of my favorites. And for the record, they don’t do much that a 69xx or PSA ‘stripped’ doesn’t do. Same things true for women but nobody arguing about that!  fully aware lots of females / ladies / women are on this site. wouldn’t be fair to exclude you from the bashings
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 4:19:22 PM EDT
[#33]
Some good pics at this vendor and a little cheaper price.
 Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 7:59:37 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Full ambi and a better rail attachment system. LWRCI DI would be somewhat comparable and retails for $17XX without BUIS. The Colt just hit market so I could see prices coming down. Not sure why people hate this thing so much. Oh, that's right, because it's a Colt. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There isn't a whole lot there that a competiting company sells cheaper. I think Id rather have a FN. Not sure why people hate this thing so much. Oh, that's right, because it's a Colt. It will once the novelty wears off and the market calms itself. I can see this at a MSRP of $1799, with deals around the price of a 6920 SOCOM, so long as it doesn't become a limited item every other year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2022 1:02:20 AM EDT
[#35]
I ‘think’ as illustrated in the ongoing post I referenced with their cheaper price and $100 Labor Day coupon your assessment ($1799) is near reality.
Problem (for some) is, no one can verify if the vendor has them available to ship ‘now’. I like some of the others previous comparison to a LWRC DI. I’m still a wait and see if it handles real world abuse but I’m thinking the price point isn’t as crazy as was first blush without all the info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2022 1:46:43 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Solid design but 5-10 years too late. Please don't tell me they are using an M4 barrel profile under that handguard...... I’d much prefer pencil but I’ll take M4 profile over government or HBAR any day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2022 8:55:11 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’d much prefer pencil but I’ll take M4 profile over government or HBAR any day. I wish I still had the barrel from my sporter HBAR, Id send it off for some nice deep flutes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2022 3:51:18 PM EDT
[#38]
Anyone know how the gas block is secured?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2022 7:33:08 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone know how the gas block is secured? Pinned. It's a factory "shaved" standard gas block |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2022 9:12:33 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @hypno02 Pinned. It's a factory "shaved" standard gas block Thanks man. No better way to secure a gas block IMO. Can anyone confirm it is indeed socom profile? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2022 10:59:15 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks man. No better way to secure a gas block IMO. Can anyone confirm it is indeed socom profile? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2022 11:19:06 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's what I saw when I shot them Thanks for the feedback. If they can build these at CZ/old colt quality standards they'll be worth the price. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2022 12:58:50 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for the feedback. If they can build these at CZ/old colt quality standards they'll be worth the price. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2022 8:54:17 PM EDT
[#44]
Why are these engraved "M5" and not "M5 Carbine"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2022 9:09:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So the main "upgrade" is the ambi lower? Guess you missed the advanced air cooling system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2022 9:30:12 PM EDT
[#46]
I have a Colt that looks similar, it didn't cost me $1995.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2022 11:06:10 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Basically discontinued, aside from their contract rifles. Think it’s been replaced by their “modular” rifle, same lower, just a more standard upper with a m-lok rail. LMT sued Colt for patent infringement, claiming the 6940 two-piece upper design was a rip off of their MRP upper. LMT won, forcing Colt to pay royalties for each upper sold. I believe LMT paid someone off, or Colt abandoned the case. It’s the only answers that make sense, Colt’s “monolithic” upper isn’t a true single piece, and uses a more traditional barrel nut, rather than the clamp design that LMT uses. They’re different enough that anyone with two brain cells can tell that they were designed independently from one another, and with different philosophies. The 6940 was specifically for military customers, had a removable lower rail to allow for mounting an M203. IIRC, Colt began work on the 6940 and the 901 for SOCOM’s SCAR trials, but weren’t able to complete the 308 version of the 901 in time, hence FNH ended up winning. Should have done the big brain move and bought a license for Vltor's polylithic upper. 
|
|
|
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.
