Quote History Quoted:
The engraving is somewhat key to many and it’s a shame as it’s not like Colt is being harmed by somebody engraving their logo on a receiver. They don’t offer what people are asking for and it’s not like anybody is going to think your 80% receiver is the illusive semi auto only XM16E1 or something.
View Quote
I hate to side with the lawyers, but I would say that Colt could actually make a legitimate argument that people engraving 80% lowers with their logo are impacting their business, even if only in a small way. The direct example is the new LE6920 SOCOM rifle that’s marked “PROPERTY OF US GOVT” with the correct Colt logo and M4A1 model designation. However, prior to that, people who wanted to clone an M4A1 would just buy a regular SOCOM model and live with the incorrect markings, or they could have an 80% lower engraved - meaning they weren’t buying a Colt rifle or lower as a starting point. Going back further, before 80% lowers were a thing, how were people cloning retro rifles? I would guess they were buying Colt lowers in many cases, so they could have a Colt, even if it wasn’t marked correct. Colt could probably make a decent argument that people who would have otherwise bought a Colt lower for their build are having 80% lowers engraved instead. It may not be serious harm to Colt’s business, but it could legally be financial harm, nonetheless.
I’ve been wondering if maybe Braceman was threatened with legal action in some way, which might have led to him getting out of the engraving business. I think the 80% clone engravings look fantastic, but I can also see why manufacturers might not take kindly to it.