Colt M7 7.62 (Page 4 of 5)
|
Originally Posted By Usmcdevildog777: Hey guys, will this colt m7 take an auto sear like to colt 901 did, or do they have some stupid block in it, can anyone post a picture of the inside of the lower receiver.. yes it's a registered auto sear for those who just gotta know lol |
|
Originally Posted By Usmcdevildog777: Hey guys, will this colt m7 take an auto sear like to colt 901 did, or do they have some stupid block in it, can anyone post a picture of the inside of the lower receiver.. yes it’s a registered auto sear for those who just gotta know lol It's identical to a 901 lower. |
|
Finally shot my M7 13.7 and it was flawless, really enjoyed the weapon, the trigger is a bit hard and the 13.7 barrel is loud, want opinions on what trigger to add and also what suppressor should I buy? I have 3 brand new triggers, which one should I choose? Attached File |
email me at: [email protected]
The most entertaining outcome is the most likely
Joined:
Oct 2013
Posts:
6836
EE: 100% (83)
UT, USA
|
Originally Posted By MiamiSniper: Finally shot my M7 13.7 and it was flawless, really enjoyed the weapon, the trigger is a bit hard and the 13.7 barrel is loud, want opinions on what trigger to add and also what suppressor should I buy? I have 3 brand new triggers, which one should I choose? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/21371/IMG_0672_jpeg-3343379.JPG I use a Huxwrx flow 7.62ti for my 308's. Last month Silencershop was running a special where you buy it and they give you a free tax stamp (basically $200) It's nice and lightweight, no need to make a heavy gun heavier, especially out front. |
|
I'm probably going to snag one of these 16 inchers soon. I know 7.62 ARs aren't modular to the degree that 5.56 rifles are, but in thinking about how I'd want to set it up I'd like to clarify a few things with those who have them already. You guys are saying that neither AR-15 nor AR-10 charging handles will fit? I thought the uppers on these were more or less like other AR-10s with the exception of the front takedown pin location and the BCG tail being scaled down to fit in a AR-15 diameter buffer tube. It was mentioned that the gas block is not adjustable, but is there any other means of tailoring it to suppressed use like changing buffers? I couldn't find anything on the buffer length or weight for either the M7 or the 901. I live way out East in a pine swamp so I'll most likely go with a Nightforce ATACR 1-8x24 for it. |
|
Originally Posted By AK-12: Ordered mine this morning, looks like AU has 7 left in stock. @MiamiSniper, are the Mlok rail sections it comes with plastic or aluminum? Probably a good move, from what I have heard Colt has no plans on making any more in the near future. At least that's what they told me a few months back when I called them. |
|
Originally Posted By Bret: I’m not getting a good cheek weld with the VLTOR stocks that come with these rifles. It feels more like a chin weld, especially when using an optic. Does anyone know of a cheek riser that attaches to the VLTOR stocks? There isn't one, unless you make an old school duct tape and foam one yourself. Magpul has cheek risers for some of their stocks, and B5 has a PRS type stock that attaches to carbine tubes. The Vltors are actually some of my favorite stocks, though I replaced the Imod on my M7 with an Emod because I like the clubfoot area better for shooting prone; it gives about the same LOP fully collapsed as the Imod does one click out. I also have a Vltor on my NVG carbine that has an EOtech on a high riser though so I'm accustomed to the cheek weld. |
|
Originally Posted By securenet: Probably a good move, from what I have heard Colt has no plans on making any more in the near future. At least that's what they told me a few months back when I called them. M7's/CM762 are a standard catalog item. They just aren't made very often. From conversations that I have had, there will be more seen on the market in 2025. We may get lucky and see some parts become available in 2025 also. But, I don't have a warm fuzzy on that yet. |
|
Originally Posted By AK-12: There isn't one, unless you make an old school duct tape and foam one yourself. Magpul has cheek risers for some of their stocks, and B5 has a PRS type stock that attaches to carbine tubes. I ordered a Magpul stock and one of their 0.75" cheek risers. I'll let you know how it works. |
|
Originally Posted By LIL-COMMANDO: I have not seen any CM 762 13 inch rifles posted with pics of groupings. I have not found any videos on youtube for these newer rifles. I’m not sure you’re going to with so few made. Most will probably be unfired and in someone’s collection. |
|
Originally Posted By Beyond_Visual_Range: These look available and on sale for $2200 right now. I dont think these Colts 7.62 compete well against the MCX 7.62. |
|
Originally Posted By Beyond_Visual_Range: These look available and on sale for $2200 right now. I dont think these Colts 7.62 compete well against the MCX 7.62. The Spear heavy is not a good rifle. The handguard design and QC on the handguard are trash. There is significant handguard shift which is not fixable. The barrel lockup needs a redesign too. They are inaccurate, inconsistent rifles with very significant design flaws. Also this is a discussion about the Colt M7, why bring up the Spear heavy? |
| It's a fair comparison, but I still think the Colt compares favorably, and also against the KAC and LMT. Pretty much everything in this catergory is going to have a lot of proprietary parts, but the Colt is pretty light and well balanced compared to the others. |
|
Originally Posted By JoshNC: The Spear heavy is not a good rifle. The handguard design and QC on the handguard are trash. There is significant handguard shift which is not fixable. The barrel lockup needs a redesign too. They are inaccurate, inconsistent rifles with very significant design flaws. Also this is a discussion about the Colt M7, why bring up the Spear heavy? |
|
Originally Posted By MGYSGT8541: You lose credibility with the discussion when you say the gun is trash. It's a great weapon. I own a CM7 13' and the MCX Spear. Both are solid. Accuracy is pretty close (1MOA or better). Very reliable as well. I wasn't the one that brought up the Spear. Someone else did. Trash..lol. Come on. Ask any of the enlisted guys who’ve actually used it professionally. Tier-1 units sidelined it nearly immediately because of the rail shift and poor accuracy across a fleet of rifles. The handguard also has very sloppy tolerances and variances across a fleet. The rail issue isn’t correctable without a complete redesign. Same re: the barrel-receiver lockup that is the source of the accuracy issues. These are facts. The rifle has a lot of promise, it just needs a redesign in barrel lockup and handguard lockup. If yours shoots accurately and you’re happy, great. You got lucky with yours. We have one in the shop, it looks really cool. But it has issues. This will be my last post on the Spear in this thread. We’ve derailed enough. |
|
Question for you guys putting MPVOs or other erector tube scopes on these: is a cantilever mount necessary if you are bridging the receiver rail to the part of the handguard that sits over the receiver snout? I'll be mounting an ATACR 4-16x42 on it and I think it may be short enough to keep on the upper receiver rail (I'll have to play with it when it gets here to confirm), but if not I don't feel like the handguard attachment system on these would require a cantilevered mount. Some of the Colt promotional materials show M7s with scopes on them mounted with one ring on the receiver rail and one on the handguard rail so I'm inclined to believe it wouldn't be a problem. |
|
Originally Posted By AK-12: I'm probably going to snag one of these 16 inchers soon. I know 7.62 ARs aren't modular to the degree that 5.56 rifles are, but in thinking about how I'd want to set it up I'd like to clarify a few things with those who have them already. You guys are saying that neither AR-15 nor AR-10 charging handles will fit? I thought the uppers on these were more or less like other AR-10s with the exception of the front takedown pin location and the BCG tail being scaled down to fit in a AR-15 diameter buffer tube. It was mentioned that the gas block is not adjustable, but is there any other means of tailoring it to suppressed use like changing buffers? I couldn't find anything on the buffer length or weight for either the M7 or the 901. I live way out East in a pine swamp so I'll most likely go with a Nightforce ATACR 1-8x24 for it. I'm REALLY interested in this but, not knowing much about it, I don't want to get a platform that is so proprietary that it's hard to support. Is this better than some that hit the mid four digits? I'm looking for standard AR utility. How good is a 16 inch barrel for 300-600 yards? |
|
Originally Posted By AK-12: I'm probably going to snag one of these 16 inchers soon. I know 7.62 ARs aren't modular to the degree that 5.56 rifles are, but in thinking about how I'd want to set it up I'd like to clarify a few things with those who have them already. You guys are saying that neither AR-15 nor AR-10 charging handles will fit? I thought the uppers on these were more or less like other AR-10s with the exception of the front takedown pin location and the BCG tail being scaled down to fit in a AR-15 diameter buffer tube. It was mentioned that the gas block is not adjustable, but is there any other means of tailoring it to suppressed use like changing buffers? I couldn't find anything on the buffer length or weight for either the M7 or the 901. I live way out East in a pine swamp so I'll most likely go with a Nightforce ATACR 1-8x24 for it. Credit to DocMaker in the big 901 thread Attached File Buffer is slightly longer than a standard 308 buffer. Swapped in a standard 308 buffer and the carrier key kissed the lower a bit. |
valheru21:"The argument, "this gun won't go down in value," is used to convince the wife that you are not making a bad financial decision when purchasing a firearm. You're not ACTUALLY supposed to ever sell the gun."
Matt
Matt
|
Originally Posted By AK-12: is a cantilever mount necessary if you are bridging the receiver rail to the part of the handguard that sits over the receiver snout? That's a good question, but where are you finding scope mounts that aren't cantilever? I can't say that I've looked really hard, but it seems that all that I'm seeing are cantilever mounts. Armalite made a nice non-cantilever scope mount in the past, but they discontinued it for some reason. |
|
Originally Posted By Bret: That's a good question, but where are you finding scope mounts that aren't cantilever? I can't say that I've looked really hard, but it seems that all that I'm seeing are cantilever mounts. Armalite made a nice non-cantilever scope mount in the past, but they discontinued it for some reason. ADM, Spuhr, and Seekins to name a few. I don't care for cantilevers if I don't need to use one. |
|
Originally Posted By Bret: If you have a rail across the top of the receiver and barrel, they're solving a problem that doesn't exist. They add weight and are not as structurally sound as non-cantilever scope mount. |
|
Originally Posted By MGYSGT8541: My CM7 SBR has a cantilever with a Bushnell elite 1-8 LVPO. The reason I like them is for quick detachment. Not being Structurally sound I have not heard that one before. Never had an issue using them Cantilever has nothing to do with the levers that lock the mount in place. It has to do with the location of the rings relative to the center of the mount's base. If each ring is the same distance from the center of the base, then it's a non-cantilever mount. If one ring is further from the center of the mount than the other, then it's a cantilever mount. Here are a couple of examples to illustrate. Non-cantilever  Cantilever  With a non-cantilever mount, you can flip it around 180deg to change the side of the locking levers (or screws) and the rings will still end up in the same place. With a cantilever mount, you can't do that. As you can see, there's no reason advantage to using a cantilever mount if you have a long enough rail on top of your rifle. All else being equal, the shorter distance from the base of the mount to the ring allows the mount to deflect less. |
|
Cantilevers are usually a bit heavier and more expensive. IMHO there is also a bit more potential for flex due to the cantilevered portion, but I'm not an engineer. FWIW I ended up ordering a Reptilia 39mm AUS, along with a ROF 90 RMR from Lanbo. $330 shipped seemed pretty good. Plan is to mount a Primary Arms PLX HTX-1 on the ROF when they become available. Not sure whether I'll need a riser to get it above the elevation turret because of how low they mount, but I like that Reptilia offers them. |
|
Originally Posted By AK-12: Cantilevers are usually a bit heavier and more expensive. IMHO there is also a bit more potential for flex due to the cantilevered portion, but I'm not an engineer. FWIW I ended up ordering a Reptilia 39mm AUS, along with a ROF 90 RMR from Lanbo. $330 shipped seemed pretty good. Plan is to mount a Primary Arms PLX HTX-1 on the ROF when they become available. Not sure whether I'll need a riser to get it above the elevation turret because of how low they mount, but I like that Reptilia offers them. |
|
Originally Posted By Bret: I'm an engineer. There are many factors at play, but all other factors being equal, the shorter the distance between two points in a fixture the less the potential there will be for deviation between those points. But you are blowing it way out proportion. You sound like the engineer that told me I couldn't calculate my gas mileage because I would have to fill my tank to the same point every time, and drive the vehicle the same distance every time, and it would have to weigh the same each time. Bro, if I fill my tank until the pump stops automatically, and I fill it when my trip meter says about 300 miles, and I do this two or three times, and I take an average, I can confidently say that my vehicle gets about 23 MPG. He made it sound like I was trying to calculate the amount of fuel needed to travel to the moon. |
|
Originally Posted By H53EXPERT: But you are blowing it way out proportion. You sound like the engineer that told me I couldn't calculate my gas mileage because I would have to fill my tank to the same point every time, and drive the vehicle the same distance every time, and it would have to weigh the same each time. I kept it really basic and did indicate that there are other factors at play that are being assumed to be equal. Those factors may or may not make a more significant difference when they are thrown into the mix. Using your gas mileage example, I basically said that all else being equal, if you press the gas petal down more, your gas mileage will decrease. I'll pose a question back to you. What is the purpose of a cantilever mount? Why use a cantilever mount when you don't need one? They add weight and are not as structurally rigid as an equivalent non-cantilever mount. To see a good use of a cantilever mount, take a look at the mount shown in AK-12's picture above. If he used a non-cantilever mount, one mounting point of the base would be on the top of the receiver while the other would be on the rail. That is not as structurally sound as having both mounting points on the top of the receiver. So, in this case using a cantilever mount and mounting it only on the top of the receiver is the more structurally sound solution. Now, imagine if instead of an upper receiver and separate rail, there was just a monolithic receiver top rail. A non-cantilever mount would be a better solution than its cantilever equivalent. |
|
Originally Posted By Bret: I kept it really basic and did indicate that there are other factors at play that are being assumed to be equal. Those factors may or may not make a more significant difference when they are thrown into the mix. Using your gas mileage example, I basically said that all else being equal, if you press the gas petal down more, your gas mileage will decrease. I'll pose a question back to you. What is the purpose of a cantilever mount? Why use a cantilever mount when you don't need one? They add weight and are not as structurally rigid as an equivalent non-cantilever mount. To see a good use of a cantilever mount, take a look at the mount shown in AK-12's picture above. If he used a non-cantilever mount, one mounting point of the base would be on the top of the receiver while the other would be on the rail. That is not as structurally sound as having both mounting points on the top of the receiver. So, in this case using a cantilever mount and mounting it only on the top of the receiver is the more structurally sound solution. Now, imagine if instead of an upper receiver and separate rail, there was just a monolithic receiver top rail. A non-cantilever mount would be a better solution than its cantilever equivalent. |
|
Originally Posted By MGYSGT8541: Cantilever mounts are used a lot. Originally Posted By MGYSGT8541: Cantilever mounts are used a lot. They are used a lot and are more common than non-cantilever mounts simply because most rails are not long enough and/or in the right position to allow the use of non-cantilever mounts when using magnified optics. They have a lot of time on the battlefield and in LE. So do iron sights. That doesn't mean that there might non be a better alternative depending on the application. If there was an issue with flexing and such, it would been been identified long ago. You are saying "potential". Potentially your weapon might malfunction as well. So does that mean you shouldn't use it? There is potential in everything. Why would you buy a $300 mount when there's one that can be purchased for $30 that will allow your scope to be mounted? Because the more expensive mount has less "potential" for flex or coming loose. Though it's not ever perfectly achievable, the goal is to have the mount keep the scope in perfect alignment with the rail as if they were one unit. You don't like them for some reason but throwing the line "potentially flex" or whatever . Because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't solid. A good Cantilever is must for me if I am throwing an LVPO on a Simi auto I never said that I didn't like them. I do like them if they are required for the application. However, there's no reason to use a cantilever if the application doesn't require one. I'll note that you never answered the questions. What is the purpose of a cantilever mount? Why use a cantilever mount when you don't need one? |
|
Originally Posted By Bret: They are used a lot and are more common than non-cantilever mounts simply because most rails are not long enough and/or in the right position to allow the use of non-cantilever mounts when using magnified optics. So do iron sights. That doesn't mean that there might non be a better alternative depending on the application. Why would you buy a $300 mount when there's one that can be purchased for $30 that will allow your scope to be mounted? Because the more expensive mount has less "potential" for flex or coming loose. Though it's not ever perfectly achievable, the goal is to have the mount keep the scope in perfect alignment with the rail as if they were one unit. I never said that I didn't like them. I do like them if they are required for the application. However, there's no reason to use a cantilever if the application doesn't require one. I'll note that you never answered the questions. What is the purpose of a cantilever mount? Why use a cantilever mount when you don't need one? |
|
Originally Posted By MGYSGT8541: You keep saying "why use a cantilever mount when you don't need one"? I need one. Alot of people need them. Not all uppers are monolithic. Most aren't so one needs to use one. You don't like them or need them. You aren't everybody though. Let's let this one go. You do you and others will do what they do. They work great and I have never had one crappy out Yes, non-monolithic rails will generally require the use of a cantilever mound. But you're still not explaining why you'd use one in a scenario that didn't require one, such as having a monolithic rail. I never said that I didn't like them or need them. I actually do use them when the application calls for it. What I don't like to do is use them when they're not appropriate for the application. That doesn't mean that you can't get away with it though. At any rate, just trying to help. |
|
Originally Posted By Bret: Yes, non-monolithic rails will generally require the use of a cantilever mound. But you're still not explaining why you'd use one in a scenario that didn't require one, such as having a monolithic rail. I never said that I didn't like them or need them. I actually do use them when the application calls for it. What I don't like to do is use them when they're not appropriate for the application. That doesn't mean that you can't get away with it though. At any rate, just trying to help. |
|
Originally Posted By LIL-COMMANDO: Any of these rifle coming back in stock anytime soon? I want the 13 inch version and has anyone did any groupings from 100 yards on the shorty? |
| Were these guns chrome lined, or stainless barreled? |
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing
will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined. ” - Patrick Henry
will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined. ” - Patrick Henry
The most entertaining outcome is the most likely
Joined:
Oct 2013
Posts:
7961
EE: 100% (83)
UT, USA
Member
Joined:
Nov 2022
Posts:
343
EE: 100% (17)
TX, USA
|
Arms Unlimited now sells M7 barrel nut wrenches. I'm pretty sure they used the M5 wrench pictures on the listing for some reason but it is actually a different product, basically just an upscaled M5 wrench. https://armsunlimited.com/coltparts-barrel-nut-wrench-m7-901-series/ |
|
Originally Posted By Apple3_14159: Arms Unlimited now sells M7 barrel nut wrenches. I'm pretty sure they used the M5 wrench pictures on the listing for some reason but it is actually a different product, basically just an upscaled M5 wrench. https://armsunlimited.com/coltparts-barrel-nut-wrench-m7-901-series/ They designed them, tested them, made some adjustments and then put out the product you see now. I bought one but haven't had time to photograph it or anything. It is still in its wrapping. |
|
Originally Posted By Apple3_14159: Arms Unlimited now sells M7 barrel nut wrenches. I'm pretty sure they used the M5 wrench pictures on the listing for some reason but it is actually a different product, basically just an upscaled M5 wrench. https://armsunlimited.com/coltparts-barrel-nut-wrench-m7-901-series/ Thanks, I've been waiting for these to come out |