PENDING NEW RELEASE- CM5 Sentry (Page 6 of 13)
|
Originally Posted By drw1006: Here are some of just my uppers. All Colt with known upgrades. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/157130/Colt_Uppers-1711985.jpg Whorish behavior sir. Nice collection. |
|
I would have to pull it out to be 100% sure but I have a 6940 that was bought 1-2 years ago. It had the new “CARBINE” lower on it and I’m pretty sure that upper is C stamped. I put this to the same “theory” that I have with the current M5s. Older uppers that are still being used up on current production rifles. |
|
Originally Posted By oxford411: I would have to pull it out to be 100% sure but I have a 6940 that was bought 1-2 years ago. It had the new “CARBINE” lower on it and I’m pretty sure that upper is C stamped. I put this to the same “theory” that I have with the current M5s. Older uppers that are still being used up on current production rifles. I have examples from over the last twelve months of production that have C, CAGE code and nothing. Was going to take photos and post. |
|
Originally Posted By Minuteman1636: I have examples from over the last twelve months of production that have C, CAGE code and nothing. Was going to take photos and post. Do you think the C stamped ones are from current production or they were left over from when C stamps were the norm? |
|
Originally Posted By tactical_dude: Just received a box of new Colt stripped uppers manfactured last month. No C, Cage, or M4 markings. Still have the white T markings. Keyhole forge on all. I have noticed the Cerro forge uppers seem to have fewer markings on them than the BAFE uppers. It would be interesting to know why. |
|
Originally Posted By oxford411: I would have to pull it out to be 100% sure but I have a 6940 that was bought 1-2 years ago. It had the new “CARBINE” lower on it and I’m pretty sure that upper is C stamped. I put this to the same “theory” that I have with the current M5s. Older uppers that are still being used up on current production rifles. I was under the impression that all 6940 uppers were still C marked. I imagine it takes Colt longer to push these out, and they still have plenty of C marked monolithic blanks to work with. I picked up a new one not too long ago, and it is C marked. Another thought is not all of the forge makers are willing or able to make the monolithic upper blank, so they are coming from one source and they are the ones sticking with the C mark. |
|
Originally Posted By Minuteman1636: I have examples from over the last twelve months of production that have C, CAGE code and nothing. Was going to take photos and post. Originally Posted By Minuteman1636: Originally Posted By oxford411: I would have to pull it out to be 100% sure but I have a 6940 that was bought 1-2 years ago. It had the new “CARBINE” lower on it and I’m pretty sure that upper is C stamped. I put this to the same “theory” that I have with the current M5s. Older uppers that are still being used up on current production rifles. I have examples from over the last twelve months of production that have C, CAGE code and nothing. Was going to take photos and post. 6940s? |
Hey, I'm down for one now and looking forward to getting it  ! Ordered from the cheaper drop shipper FFL to save about $200 (first time to go this route on a purchase). Making an observation, not complaining. I do not remember ever spending this much for a new complete 'Colt AR' rifle. Scraping my piggy bank out for this Colt addition. The M5 release is relatively new to the commercial (civilian) market & has the updated ambidextrous lower controls that make this an interesting Colt. Should my expectations be higher for this new release? Noticed the picatinny attachments on the forward hand guard and the M-Lok rail covers on some catalog pics. Can anyone post pictures of their new release M5? What accessories, if any, are included in the package other than a magazine? ETA: Are there any updates/advancement on the upper receiver or barrel/barrel nut? Is the upper notched for mating to the rail like the CM7? |
USMC 85-'93 Amphibious YAT-YAS
|
Originally Posted By call_me_ski: The way the barrel interfaces with the receiver is like their monolithic guns. The upper has an extension that is internally threaded that the barrel slips into followed by the barrel nut. The handguard actually mounts to the upper around the outside of the extension rather than a threaded on barrel nut. Even though they are two piece uppers they have more in common with their monolithic uppers in design than a traditional upper. https://i.imgur.com/AZ0ltK3.png https://i.imgur.com/97gBuqA.png This is what I was talking about earlier. |
 EnforceTac 2022: Colt |
I regret nothing. The end.
 Colt M5 CM5 Sentry 16" Carbine with ambi lower and M-LOK rail 2022 edition |
-History will remember Snark as the language of ignorance.
-Fuck CHINA and Fauci for what they've done to this world.
-All the fiction novels I once loved I now fear. FJB
-Fuck CHINA and Fauci for what they've done to this world.
-All the fiction novels I once loved I now fear. FJB
|
Originally Posted By Minuteman1636: The M5 has been sold on the foreign military market for several years thus the often seen select fire lower receivers. Colt refined the design based on user feedback before introducing it to the U.S. market. The batch of M5's that just hit the market here in the U.S. was made for the U.S. market. Production delays is what caused the original release in June to get pushed back to August when these first went on sale. I will provide an additional reply tonight or this weekend regarding your statement about "no more C stamps". I don't have time to get my rifles out of my safe to provide photo reference and I don't want to make a half-assed reply. So that I didn't derail this discussion on the CM5 more, I made a new post here with the results of looking at six purchases I made over the last twelve months roughly. 2021 - 2022 Markings On Colt Upper Receivers |
|
Vickers Guide posted this image an hour ago showing the upper receiver/barrel of the M5. Attached File |
|
MM, I guess "I'm the guy" you are speaking of. I will stay out of your new thread, so not to derail it. I would ask you this, respectfully. Really. No disrespect. I think your website is great and have enjoyed watching you grow it and participate on the forum in this section. And please ask your sources. Do YOU, or anyone for that matter, see any new stripped/complete uppers as individual parts for sale from vendors and such that come with the C mark? All I have seen is CAGE code or just the forging makers mark. My assertion is that if someone got an newish rifle, such as you have, with a stamped C, that individual part may have come from NOS. That was all. Please understand. Some of us have been around Colt for a long time also and have people that they talk to that are in the know also. I am by no means a Colt encyclopedia, but I have been studying this suff, as I know you have (and done a great job) for awhile. |
I regret nothing. The end.
|
Originally Posted By drw1006: MM, I guess "I'm the guy" you are speaking of. I will stay out of your new thread, so not to derail it. I would ask you this, respectfully. Really. No disrespect. I think your website is great and have enjoyed watching you grow it and participate on the forum in this section. And please ask your sources. Do YOU, or anyone for that matter, see any new stripped/complete uppers as individual parts for sale from vendors and such that come with the C mark? All I have seen is CAGE code or just the forging makers mark. My assertion is that if someone got an newish rifle, such as you have, with a stamped C, that individual part may have come from NOS. That was all. Please understand. Some of us have been around Colt for a long time also and have people that they talk to that are in the know also. I am by no means a Colt encyclopedia, but I have been studying this suff, as I know you have (and done a great job) for awhile. I was agreeing with your statement and hoping to continue the conversation. I don't have negative thoughts at all. So, please comment/participate in the new thread. I have a different view and opinion becsuse of you and that is a good thing. I always learn more from the crowd here. |
|
Originally Posted By drw1006: Do YOU, or anyone for that matter, see any new stripped/complete uppers as individual parts for sale from vendors and such that come with the C mark?. That is a million dollar question. I don't have clue unfortunately. Based on your theory that no 'C' stamps are being applied and my pint size analysis supporting your statement, I think it would be unlikely. My best guess is that if a person wants a 'C' stamp upper, they will need to hunt down a CK on the secondary market. |
|
Originally Posted By OTDR: I would second your vote for Minuteman. Originally Posted By OTDR: Originally Posted By drw1006: And to add, I would vote you as the Colt forum moderator. You have the calm demeanor for it. Some of us are a little too (fill in the gap) for it. I would second your vote for Minuteman. Aye. |
Can't never could 'til try came along.
|
Originally Posted By MGYSGT8541: Don't get caught up in the BS. Carbine is solid and combat proven. If you start playing the mid length game well then rifle gassed is even better. It's a 556 so recoil is minimal. Why do some act like carbine gas isn't good? 11.5 carbine gassed is freaking solid. Originally Posted By MGYSGT8541: Don't get caught up in the BS. Carbine is solid and combat proven. If you start playing the mid length game well then rifle gassed is even better. It's a 556 so recoil is minimal. Why do some act like carbine gas isn't good? 11.5 carbine gassed is freaking solid. It's not BS, middy is a superior system Also here You can't live in the past and say well they did it like this for years so there's no need to improve upon it. NSWC-Crane tested for overall reliability, high- and low-temperature reliability, accuracy, projectile velocity and cyclic rate. They also performed tests suppressed as well as unsuppressed. In most cases, the mid-length gas system outperformed the carbine-length system. The mid-length system matched or bested the carbine-length system in terms of muzzle and terminal velocities, cycled more slowly — slower is better in this case — and the mid-length system had far fewer malfunctions. So far, Crane has put 30,400 rounds of M855A1 through three M4A1s equipped with 14.5″ cold hammer forged barrels and a mid-gas system with a gas block approximately 9.8″ from the bolt face. They stated SOF M4A1s normally start to see accuracy degradation at around 6,000 rounds. But during testing of the mid-gas system, they’d hit 12,600 and still hadn’t seen any changes. |
|
Originally Posted By Minuteman1636: Vickers Guide posted this image an hour ago showing the upper receiver/barrel of the M5. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/336740/Screenshot_20220917_193124_jpg-2529934.JPG Interesting, looks similar to what Aero Precision does with their enhanced upper  |
|
Originally Posted By JohnnyA: M5 for $1,725 Thanks for the link. Ended up ordering one so fingers crossed |
|
Originally Posted By aeyoung: Thanks for the link. Ended up ordering one so fingers crossed Originally Posted By aeyoung: Originally Posted By JohnnyA: M5 for $1,725 Thanks for the link. Ended up ordering one so fingers crossed Same |
USMC 85-'93 Amphibious YAT-YAS
|
Originally Posted By joe_sun: It's not BS, middy is a superior system Also here You can't live in the past and say well they did it like this for years so there's no need to improve upon it. |
|
Originally Posted By MGYSGT8541: I was involved in the testing for the A5. It offered no significant improvement. The corps didn't go with it. I was there shooting it and running tests personally. If I am going with a suppressor then it's piston all the way. It's not even close. I don't know what your involvement is but the numbers from the NSWC Crane report tell a different story. Middy had less than half the stoppages of carbine, the barrel life was more than doubled, muzzle velocity was essentially the same and the cyclic rate was reduced by 15.9% Honestly, no sarcasm, do you believe the reports from Crane are incorrect? |
|
Originally Posted By joe_sun: I don't know what your involvement is but the numbers from the NSWC Crane report tell a different story. Middy had less than half the stoppages of carbine, the barrel life was more than doubled, muzzle velocity was essentially the same and the cyclic rate was reduced by 15.9% Honestly, no sarcasm, do you believe the reports from Crane are incorrect? 1. we tested in on the M16A4/A5. I believe in what we found. It didn't nothing better but shorter LOP and no improvement in reliability. I believe in the Marine Corps. We are the gunfighters. 2. Crane didn't find it to be significant enough to warrant a change. Carbine tube is a very proven design. If A5 was that much better then someone would've adopted it. Hasn't happened. Use it if you want to. Sometimes getting something for our gun just makes us feel better or gives us piece of mind. Seems to be the case in this instance. |
|
Originally Posted By MGYSGT8541: 2 things: 1. we tested in on the M16A4/A5. I believe in what we found. I believe in the Marine Corps. We are the gunfighters. Nobody with half a brain questions that. 2. Crane didn't find it to be significant enough to warrant a change. Carbine tube is a very proven design. If A5 was that much better then someone would've adopted it. Hasn't happened. Use it if you want to. Sometimes getting something for our gun just makes us feel better or gives us piece of mind. Seems to be the case in this instance. We're not in GD here and we don't do personal attacks. That appeal to authority fallacy and implying if I had half a brain I'd just shut up and listen to you is uncalled for. I respect your service, I have family that served in the Corps along with all the other branches of the service. That being said it sounds as if we're talking about an apples to oranges situation here. You said you did testing on the rifle length gas system vs the midlength gas system on a 20" barrel, is that correct? That sounds like high praise for the middy system. I'm talking about a carbine vs middy system on a 14.5-16" system which is what Crane tested. Also the test was taking place in 2018, just because something hasn't been adopted yet doesn't mean that we can't take advantage of it. |
|
I'm a Colt enthusiast, not really an rated collector. I'm sure I'll really like the CM5 Sentry. Side note: also working on a build, an APC lower and considering Colt parts or at least Colt mil-spec'd parts. Thought was an A5 buffer system, midlength barrel set or not. The 6960 is a mid-length, without an A5 receiver extension. Hmm. Maybe, I'll stick with a carbine. Why isn't the CM5 a mid-length system? This is the latest update to the M4, why no mid-length? I'll need to research this question more. |
USMC 85-'93 Amphibious YAT-YAS
|
Originally Posted By Bishop3: Why isn't the CM5 a mid-length system? This is the latest update to the M4, why no mid-length? I'll need to research this question more. My understanding, and take that with a big ol' grain of salt, is that the mid-length did not off a significant improvement over a carbine length system and it limits some parts commonality amongst customers who operate a large inventory of existing carbine length gas system firearms. Colt has the CR6960 for users who want a mid-length system. Lastly, it seems there is only a tiny part of the AR market that actively shops for a mid-length gas system weapon. So there is a lot of unknown and potential risk in whether or not people who are buying or prefer carbine length systems would switch over. Sticking with what sales figures show is the safe bet for them. As others have mentioned, selling individual M5 lower receivers would enable people to integrate their preferred upper receiver specifications/functionality with the ambi lower features. I don't forsee a CR6960 with M5 lower anywhere on the horizon to meet a customers desire for a mid-length gas system weapon. It would be interesting to see what kind of market reaction that Colt would get if they released a batch of mid-length M5's. So, cliff notes version of my ramble...who knows...I don't.  |
|
Originally Posted By Minuteman1636: My understanding, and take that with a big ol' grain of salt, is that the mid-length did not off a significant improvement over a carbine length system and it limits some parts commonality amongst customers who operate a large inventory of existing carbine length gas system firearms. Colt has the CR6960 for users who want a mid-length system. Lastly, it seems there is only a tiny part of the AR market that actively shops for a mid-length gas system weapon. So there is a lot of unknown and potential risk in whether or not people who are buying or prefer carbine length systems would switch over. Sticking with what sales figures show is the safe bet for them. As others have mentioned, selling individual M5 lower receivers would enable people to integrate their preferred upper receiver specifications/functionality with the ambi lower features. I don't forsee a CR6960 with M5 lower anywhere on the horizon to meet a customers desire for a mid-length gas system weapon. It would be interesting to see what kind of market reaction that Colt would get if they released a batch of mid-length M5's. So, cliff notes version of my ramble...who knows...I don't.
|
|
Mine is supposed to be delivered tomorrow! I may not have it until later though, depending on the FFLs schedule. I'll tell you the vendor I chose they are apparently shipping quick. eta: Yes needs more pics! |
USMC 85-'93 Amphibious YAT-YAS
|
Originally Posted By Minuteman1636: It would be interesting to see what kind of market reaction that Colt would get if they released a batch of mid-length M5's. At this point I would rather see them do a 14.5” P/W and a 10.3/11.5 pistol version like G does with the super duty. |
|
Originally Posted By joe_sun: We're not in GD here and we don't do personal attacks. That appeal to authority fallacy and implying if I had half a brain I'd just shut up and listen to you is uncalled for. I respect your service, I have family that served in the Corps along with all the other branches of the service. That being said it sounds as if we're talking about an apples to oranges situation here. You said you did testing on the rifle length gas system vs the midlength gas system on a 20" barrel, is that correct? That sounds like high praise for the middy system. I'm talking about a carbine vs middy system on a 14.5-16" system which is what Crane tested. Also the test was taking place in 2018, just because something hasn't been adopted yet doesn't mean that we can't take advantage of it. |
|
Originally Posted By gelmir: I'll keep this simple for the knuckle dragger crowd. If Colt lowered the price to $1700 and sold 1000 models in carbine length and 1000 midlength , they'd have sold out on midlegth and sitting on 600 units of carbine...just saying i am going to put my M5 lower with a 6960 upper or a 6720-R upper probably |
PENDING NEW RELEASE- CM5 Sentry (Page 6 of 13)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter