Posted: 1/21/2017 10:26:16 PM EDT
|
Brand new Colt 6933 factory SBR rifle right out of the box at our gun store, we were shocked to see this from a new Colt right out of the box and that this made it out of Colt's factory as a ready to ship item. The upper receiver is fine but the lower receiver is unbelievably scratched up and even shows grinder marks prior to finishing. Clearly after finishing it was scratched up again. We have always touted Colt at our store as a quality gun, but this recent event has left us shocked. Look at the last pic of the bottom right of the receiver, it took a big ding!
Here are the pics, you decide. Again, brand new gun right out of the box. We returned this gun to Colt in mid September and we still don't have it back yet. 8 months and we are still waiting... 
I 
|
|
Quoted:
The right side looks normal for a Colt, the left side is unacceptable. I agree completely. The light scratches on the right side are acceptable to me and I could make the "it's a tool" argument there. The left side of the lower is completely unacceptable though; I'd be PISSED on a factory SBR. If it wasn't NFA, I'd be on the phone to Colt about that ASAP. With it being NFA, I don't know that it'd be easy to replace. 
ETA: Is this something you've already submitted on a Form 4? I reread your post and it sounds like it's still on a Form 3 with the SOT. If so, they could have Colt change it out before it's sold to someone. |
|
Quoted:
I agree completely. The light scratches on the right side are acceptable to me and I could make the "it's a tool" argument there. The left side of the lower is completely unacceptable though; I'd be PISSED on a factory SBR. If it wasn't NFA, I'd be on the phone to Colt about that ASAP. With it being NFA, I don't know that it'd be easy to replace.
ETA: Is this something you've already submitted on a Form 4? I reread your post and it sounds like it's still on a Form 3 with the SOT. If so, they could have Colt change it out before it's sold to someone. Quoted:
Quoted:
The right side looks normal for a Colt, the left side is unacceptable. I agree completely. The light scratches on the right side are acceptable to me and I could make the "it's a tool" argument there. The left side of the lower is completely unacceptable though; I'd be PISSED on a factory SBR. If it wasn't NFA, I'd be on the phone to Colt about that ASAP. With it being NFA, I don't know that it'd be easy to replace.
ETA: Is this something you've already submitted on a Form 4? I reread your post and it sounds like it's still on a Form 3 with the SOT. If so, they could have Colt change it out before it's sold to someone. No form 4 started yet, Colt needs to replace the lower receiver. I don't think you can fix those nasty grind marks. |
|
Quoted:
Update: We received a call today from Colt, they will be replacing the lower receiver, no answer as to why it took 4 months to come to this conclusion. I'll keep you guys posted on how long this takes and the final result. Thanks They're watching... Hey Colt, how about delivering a few crates of ambi levers to Brownells and getting that 6940 with the 901's awesome rail out to market? That'd be really cool, guys. |
|
Quoted:
Update: We received a call today from Colt, they will be replacing the lower receiver, no answer as to why it took 4 months to come to this conclusion. I'll keep you guys posted on how long this takes and the final result. Thanks Like when you go to the pharmacy, your order doesn't take an hour, it just takes them an hour to get to yours. |
|
Quoted:
Update: We received a call today from Colt, they will be replacing the lower receiver, no answer as to why it took 4 months to come to this conclusion. I'll keep you guys posted on how long this takes and the final result. Thanks |
|
Quoted:
I'm wondering if someone got their ass chewed over that one. Quoted:
Quoted:
Update: We received a call today from Colt, they will be replacing the lower receiver, no answer as to why it took 4 months to come to this conclusion. I'll keep you guys posted on how long this takes and the final result. Thanks Nope, because it's mil-spec and doesn't affect the performance of the weapon. Standard Colt response |
|
Quoted:
I think some of you guys would be happier buying some SAI done up Ars with gold or RRA. I hear they always look pretty There it finally is. And he's giving better advice than he probably knows. The only thing Colts have that other receiver makers don't have are the Name and the willingness to send work like this out the door. I've never even seen a "blem" receiver like that from another manufacturer. The only thing they really have going for them at all anymore are their bolt carrier groups...and maybe their barrels. But premium parts are available from a wide variety of sources these days, and anyone can stake their own castle nut, if that's your thing. So if you want a true 100% Colt (and I do love the ones I've got), make sure you can see it before you buy it. Otherwise, by all means, take the man's advice and buy an RRA or a Stag or whatever, and just shove a Colt or BCM BCG in it...or just buy a Colt or BCM BCG as a spare and use the one it comes with until it fails. I've never had a real problem with a non-Bushmaster BCG, but I'd probably trust a Colt BCG over most others...at least for now. |
I bought a Bushmaster back in the late 90's that was gouged up pretty good. It was messed up before they anodized it . The finish was perfectly placed over the buckshot looking pock marked upper. It functioned 100% . But had the battle scars factory installed. I wouldn't accepted that Colt rifle either. Im a fan boy . Wardawg
|
|
Quoted:
There is simply no excuse for that. I am sure someone will be along shortly with "its a tool/weapon of war/Colt makes battle rifles not pretty rifles" argument. |
|
You know I was thinking about this rifle, and I agree that it is unacceptable, but as someone who has started accumulating "Hartford Horsies" I wonder if this wouldn't be a neat rifle in a Colt collection For better or worse, it looks like Colt produces this sort of thing, and having that example is just part of the story of the company.
It's a pipe dream but I wish a management group could get together and start a crowdfunding campaign or something to buy Colt and restore it to the quality name it used to be. This kind of crap and licensing the name to crappy products just ain't right. They would do better in the long run to focus on quality and proffer themselves as holders of the TDP. Then they could make it comfortably with consumer sales when government contracts fall through. Edited for grammar and shit. |
