Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 10/21/2002 6:46:47 AM EST
Our Department recently elected to issue the Colt MT6601C as a general duty patrol rifle. While I see little need for this device in the context of its intended use, I recommended a "LE Only" (i.e. pre ban) configuration, to allow the brake to be threaded. Alas, my concerns fell on deaf ears and we are now finding the brakes are becoming dislodged during firing. Has anybody experienced a similar problem and, if so, any suggestions? Would replacement of the roll pins with solid pins solve the problem?
Link Posted: 10/21/2002 6:14:01 PM EST
As far as roll vs solid pins are concerned, solid pins are stronger than roll pins (which lose tension after repeated installations and re-installations).

If the rifles are for LE use only, then the pre- vs post-ban distinctions is moot. There's really no reason NOT to use a threaded barrel.

I've never seen a pinned on muzzle brake dislodge itsself, but I'm sure it could happen. Replacing the barrels with the threaded variety is easy enough.

Link Posted: 10/21/2002 6:26:02 PM EST
Why was the preban/postban configuration debated at all. Given the versatile nature of a preban rifle, a department should always choose the more versatile option. Having a xhoice in the matter, why did they even pick the postban? Did they pick ten round mags too? I mean c'mon, whose the pencil neck who made the decision?
Link Posted: 10/21/2002 7:42:48 PM EST
For LE agencies, the pre/post ban discussion is moot. They can buy 'em BRAND NEW in their original (read: pre-ban) configurations.

Pre vs post ban is a discussion for private owners.
Link Posted: 10/21/2002 7:48:00 PM EST
blackmanta: If you were talking to me, yes I know it is a discussion for civies. That is why I asked the question. TAC2's department opted for postban barrels. My question was why the heck did they do that if they had the option of a new threaded barrel? it simply does not make sense to me. Are flashhiders something that particular department doesn't allow?
Link Posted: 10/21/2002 8:26:46 PM EST

I didn't mean that as a snipe at you. I'm sorry if it sounded that way.

An LE agency may not want flash hiders out of some sort of PC business, but given the number of police/suspect confrontations that occur at night, a flash hider would be a good idea on a patrol rifle.
Link Posted: 10/22/2002 12:49:09 AM EST
No prob, blackmanta. It does sound like a PC thing, but doesn't the public trust the police to not "abuse" the "evil" features of "assault weapons"? I mean isn't that why the privelege of those features were taken away from the common citizen and only made available to law enforcement and military? The misperception that only cops and soldiers have the ability and willpower to use thes weapons in a responsible manner? Perhaps those hoplophobes don't even want the police to have guns at all? Law abiding citizens with no guns. Law enforcement with no guns. A perfect world. One where criminals run rampant with no one able to stop them. One can only dream...
Link Posted: 10/22/2002 7:03:42 AM EST
Yea guys, your assessment is exactly correct. Those of us in the field recommended the L.E. configuration, as well as the 16" barrels. By the time the proposal got to headquarters, we barely recognized our input. Couldn't have a rifle that looked too "militaristic". At this point, the threaded barrel swap isn't an option since the admin won't sign off on it. We have at least 200 officers who paid out of their pockets to obtain the rifle the department said they would sanction and now are not authorized to carry them.
Top Top