[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Colt Quality control (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 9/28/2012 4:39:48 PM EDT
|
Hello all, I am new to the board but I have been an AR enthusiast for a long time since 95 when I purchased my first one .... a colt, great rifle. I have bought and sold or traded a few since including bushmaster DPMS and Rock River All good rifles also. I decide to buy a second Colt and when I got it there a screw up drill mark overlapping the front sight barrel pin... If I could post a pic I would , be glad to email one to anyone who can tell me if this is not big deal or not. anyays what it is is the hole for attching the front sight gasblock to the barrel was starting in the wrong spot, drilled about a 32nd deep corrected and drilled in the right spot, so I have the back pin on the sight covering about half of a drill hole that shouldnt be there. Not the quality I expected for Colt Money. Maybe I am just being too picky but I was disapointed to say the least after spending the money, Everything else on the rifle is as it should be, I have not fired it yet for an accuacy test.
Kind of makes me wonder if anything else was drilled in the wrong spot....... 
|
|
Colt's QA inspectors care about a carbine that functions 100%....not that looks 'pretty'.
All 4 of my Colts have EVER had 1 malfuntion, through thousands of rounds each, and all of them have come with some sort of 'love' mark out of the box from the factory. You want 'pretty', buy something else. You want a hard use tool that works 100% of the time, buy a Colt. |
|
Quoted:
Colt's QA inspectors care about a carbine that functions 100%....not that looks 'pretty'. All 4 of my Colts have EVER had 1 malfuntion, through thousands of rounds each, and all of them have come with some sort of 'love' mark out of the box from the factory. You want 'pretty', buy something else. You want a hard use tool that works 100% of the time, buy a Colt. Having worked in a high quality machine shop....this is not a "ugly" issue....it is an issue of a hole getting drilled in the wrong spot.. I didnt pay for screwups. Wether the front sight post was positioned in the clamp or jig crooked or the programmer was hung over...it is not top quality workmanship. although I am sure the rifle will perform flawlessy as most Colts do. But Thank you for the reply I get what you are saying. Most of my guns are very "used" , nick scratches and gouges are part of it. It is as "Pretty" as any AR Ive ever seen..... but thats not why I bought it. |
|
Having worked in a high quality machine shop....this is not a "ugly" issue....it is an issue of a hole getting drilled in the wrong spot.. I didnt pay for screwups. Wether the front sight post was positioned in the clamp or jig crooked or the programmer was hung over...it is not top quality workmanship. although I am sure the rifle will perform flawlessy as most Colts do. But Thank you for the reply I get what you are saying. Most of my guns are very "used" , nick scratches and gouges are part of it. It is as "Pretty" as any AR Ive ever seen..... but thats not why I bought it. You'll have to pardon my sarcasm from my last post.....we have had a lot of 'My brand new Colt isn't pretty' threads lately. I'm glad you 'get it' about function over form.....many people don't. I'm positive that the Colt QA guys would have pulled and re-worked your carbine if there was any indication that the mis-drilled FSB would cause any function issues. One of my 6940's came out of the box with a gouge on the FSB. It hasn't missed a beat in over 2200 rounds, so I'm thinking I can live with the ding. If you feel that you absolutely can't sleep at night with that mis-drilled FSB (believe me, I have some OCD tendancys on some things that would do that to me!), then by all means, contact Colt...they WILL take care of you. Otherwise, give it the love it deserves by shooting the crap out of it! Best! Jeff |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt's QA inspectors care about a carbine that functions 100%....not that looks 'pretty'. So would an unstaked gas key function 100% a 100% of the time? I agree....if they f&$k up and miss something like an unstaked carrier key, by all means Colt, DD, Noveske, BCM, or whomever should be held accountable for it. My point was that to me, form follows function in a tool. Period. |
|
Quoted:
Colt's QA inspectors care about a carbine that functions 100%....not that looks 'pretty'. All 4 of my Colts have EVER had 1 malfuntion, through thousands of rounds each, and all of them have come with some sort of 'love' mark out of the box from the factory. You want 'pretty', buy something else. You want a hard use tool that works 100% of the time, buy a Colt. I love these posts. If a gun is issued or given to me, it can be beat to hell, have machining marks, look like a calico, rattle, whatever, as long as it works, no complaints. If I buy it used and fail to inspect it, and later notice the owner peened the shit out of the FSB for some reason, buyer beware. I do not buy new firearms expecting to need to go over them looking for an FSB that looks like a 6yo counterfit it and the sweatshop owner happily corrected them before it was ruined and threw it into the parts bin anyway cause it was good 'nuff. Obviously this is an exageration, and not intended to insinuate Colt uses any shady labor practices, I believe they are a good company, and I believe they will resolve this if you let them. I also believe if everyone just accepts it as good 'nuff, it will rapidly become the new normal, and even worse things will QC good 'nuff until reliability does suffer. But I do also accept grudgingly that due to the nature of the industry I must look over to some extent the firearm I'm getting, not the display, before money changes hands, this is why I won't mail order. |
|
First AR I bought was a Colt back in 1983, it was perfect. Second one was a Colt in 1993, it was perfect. Third one in 1999 was perfect. Lately we hear that's how Colt's are, they build them to function and don't care how they look. Well at one time they cared about both how they look and how they function. As long as people except them fucked up they will keep shipping them out that way. IF I ever buy another Colt it's going back if it's not right. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
WalMart or not, they will fix it. Odds are it will not effect the function, but if you are concerned about the cosmetics, get it fixed. Colt doesn't sell seconds, not at Wally World, or anywhere else. Those who say so are operationg on opinion, not facts. No one said that Colt is selling seconds to Wal-mart. Wal-mart and Academy have a no return policy on firearms, so if you bought it there, your only recourse is to deal with the manufacturer. Some gun stores will exchange the item, or at least box it and ship it back to the manufacturer for repair for you. Academy will also ship back to the manufacturer, and not charge you to do it. They also do make exceptions to their return policy. |
| So if I buy a Colt Gold Cup match, I should ignore that it has a huge guage from the slide stop? Seriously, for the amount of money they command you shouldn't expect cosmetic issues, if I pay 1200 dollars for a P220 super match I expect a perfect finish. If I pay 1100 dollars for a colt I'd expect it to look as good or better than the 200 dollar cheaper Sig M400. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt's QA inspectors care about a carbine that functions 100%....not that looks 'pretty'. So would an unstaked gas key function 100% a 100% of the time? Rifle does NOT has to look "pretty", to the least it should not looks like some botched the machining or anodizing. I have not ever been to a real QC/QA dept where cosmetic defects are not considered a defect and pass it with seal of approval. Good Luck to OP. This is "normal" to Colt and most Colt owner, appearantly many willing to overlook this and live with it. This kind of thing about Colt is not supposed to be mentioned here. |
|
Quoted:
So if I buy a Colt Gold Cup match, I should ignore that it has a huge guage from the slide stop? Seriously, for the amount of money they command you shouldn't expect cosmetic issues, if I pay 1200 dollars for a P220 super match I expect a perfect finish. If I pay 1100 dollars for a colt I'd expect it to look as good or better than the 200 dollar cheaper Sig M400. I feel the same about these issues but many here do not and thats all good too. You know the old saying "opinons are like assholes everybody has one" |
|
Quoted:
Colt and quality control are two things you'll read a lot about of late... Ain't that the truth. New guys show up everyday and their very first post is bitching about a problem with their Colt. This Colt hate is getting really old too. 
Do they make some mistakes? Fucking right. But consider how many rifles Colt makes compared to other manufacturers. ETA I've purchased both of these Colt 6940's within the last 10 months. They are perfect in fit, finish and function. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt and quality control are two things you'll read a lot about of late... Ain't that the truth. The Colt hate is getting really old too.
To OP: do see what I mean. Everytime someone bring this up is a Colt hater. I like Colt, so does the OP or else he would not buy one. |
|
Quoted:
Colt's QA inspectors care about a carbine that functions 100%....not that looks 'pretty'. All 4 of my Colts have EVER had 1 malfuntion, through thousands of rounds each, and all of them have come with some sort of 'love' mark out of the box from the factory. You want 'pretty', buy something else. You want a hard use tool that works 100% of the time, buy a Colt. That is a bullshit tired out excuse from the Colt apologists. Colt has obviously ramped up their focus towards the civilian market. When we civilians pay for stuff, especially when it costs $1000 or more, we want it made right. Not oops, oh it will still work, it is good enough for government work. I have purchased all manner of ARs or AR components that worked perfectly, and with the exception of one, the very first Bushmaster I bought back in 2003 or so, none of them displayed the cosmetic fuck ups that Colt puts out. Colt is an iconic name in the industry. There is too much competition and too many other companies doing it better for Colt to continue letting out some of the shit they have been. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt and quality control are two things you'll read a lot about of late... Ain't that the truth. The Colt hate is getting really old too.
To OP: do see what I mean. Everytime someone bring this up is a Colt hater. I like Colt, so does the OP or else he would not buy one. You'll have to admit it's very suspicious when a new member's very first post here is to bitch about a rifle he should have examined closely at his gunshop before he purchased it. Take it back to the gunshop, call Colt CS (they're damn good IME) don't run to your computer, jump on the internet immediately and whine about your problem. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt and quality control are two things you'll read a lot about of late... Ain't that the truth. The Colt hate is getting really old too.
To OP: do see what I mean. Everytime someone bring this up is a Colt hater. I like Colt, so does the OP or else he would not buy one. You'll have to admit it's very suspicious when a new member's very first post here is to bitch about a rifle he should have examined closely at his gunshop before he purchased it. Take it back to the gunshop, call Colt CS (they're damn good IME) don't run to your computer, jump on the internet immediately and whine about your problem. I'm not a new poster or AR owner and just a couple of weeks ago, passed on buying a new Colt 6940 because the some of the rollmark was double stamped and looked like complete shit. Shouldn't have left the factory that way. Am I still going to get a 6940? Probably. But I did pass on that particular sale. Fact of the matter is, post count has nothing to do with a shit part leaving the factory. And that is a double whammy on Colt. Their QA inspector should have seen it on a "rifle he should have examined closely at" the factory, and the person running the drill press should have stopped what he was doing and installed a new FSB. |
|
Quoted:
A $20 dollar hammer is not the same as a $1000 rifle. If you think it is, send me a thousand bucks, and I'll send you my old, beat up, american-made claw hammer. Otherwise, using that same old, tired "it's just a tool" excuse doesn't hold water, and is just an ignorant statement. A $1,000 rifle is not the same as a $30,000 car. If you think it is, send me thirty thousand dollars, and I'll send you a beautiful, flawless AR15 that I hand polished with a diaper. Otherwise, using that same old, tired "would you buy a car with a scratch" excuse doesn't hold water, and is just an ignorant statement. Shall we keep going? It's already well established that we disagree fundamentally. I threw in *my* analogy to demonstrate that you can just as easily make an analogy that supports my point of view as yours. Which is fine. We don't have to agree, ever, in this life. I still want to see an example of where someone who feels the way I do, regardless of brand, "bashed" one brand while "giving a pass" to another. People who think one way about personally owned rifles and their purpose usually tend to feel the same way about all of them. But it is being suggested that some have a "double standard." I've heard this a lot, but almost never seen it. As for the "hypothetical scenario" about laying two otherwise identical guns on a table? Have you ever ordered a gun online? Isn't that exactly what that is? If I was concerned about finish - I would buy local, and inspect before cash changed hands. In store, the rare times I've bought from local stock: Function check, check for proper markings and stampings, to make sure no parts have been swapped out. Check bolt lug locking recesses, peer down the bore, look at the bolt face, check staking on gas key and castle nut. Most of these items are pretty much just to ensure that an unscrupulous dealer hasn't swapped parts with lesser quality parts to increase their profit margin - something I've seen done in the past. After that, I pay money and break out the Krylon. ~Augee |
|
Quoted:
Go read your posts then get back to me. Yes DD are CHF, but if you go read the DD vs Colt thread you repeatedly said "CL" and I corrected you and explained "CL" vs "CHF". Im sure you have since done a little google foo, but the proof is in the posts. Yes, looking back, I was saying CL in place of CHF for some reason. I used to own a 6920, and my good range buddy still does. I know their barrels are CL. Your "accuracy" and "pride" comments are opinion and include no data. As such it carries no weight in this conversation.
My pride comment is mainly opinion, yes. But my accuracy comments come from first-hand experience. My factory V5 with Geissele and Aimpoint M4s always groups tighter than my buddy's factory 6920 with Geissele and Aimpoint M4s. With both he or I shooting. How much data is that? Not much at all. It's just one comparison between two guys and two rifles. It does say something to me though. And I'll also add that you hear DD mentioned a ton whenever people are speaking about the most accurate barrels out there. You rarely, if even ever, here Colt barrels mentioned in those conversations. That says something to me as well. Yes your DD is a fine rifle, just as my colt. Except im not standing on the rooftops saying piss on DD.
I'm very far from saying that about Colt. The reality is, IMO, the top 5 AR manufacturers are: Noveske LaRue DD BCM Colt And I've posted that personal list before around here. Colt puts out a rock solid AR, and is surely one of the few I would trust my life with in any situation. I've solely been knocking Colt for their QC of late. Even if it's just blems that in no way effect the rifle going boom, it's still not right...and these rifles shouldn't be leaving the factory looking like that. I continue to see people coming around and justifying these blems mainly because it's a Colt rifle. I think every factory new rifle should be held to the same standards and consistency across the board. There's no excuse for Colt allowing these rifles to ship from the factory IMO. And there's also no excuse for anyone claiming it to be ok because it's a Colt either IMO. You feel differently, fine, you're entitled to that. Two of my factory new DDs were purchased at a local gun shop where I had the option to have several brand new in box rifles opened to examine prior to my purchases. I didn't opt to look at another factory new DD during either of my purchases. The first DDs I inspected during both transactions were pristine. I think that's how it should be at those prices. But hey, maybe that's just me... |
|
First pic: Resized OP's original photo (3254 x 2448) to screen friendly 800 x 600.
Second pic: Trimmed original and then resized to 800 width. It is evident that hole drilling location has been changed after initial spot. Maybe drill fixture moved, maybe barrel was not seated properly in fixture; or maybe Colt forgot to fill it with Bondo. Whatever happened, drill job looks very unprofessional. 
|
|
Quoted:
First pic: Resized OP's original photo (3254 x 2448) to screen friendly 800 x 600. Second pic: Trimmed original and then resized to 800 width. It is evident that hole drilling location has been changed after initial spot. Maybe drill fixture moved, maybe barrel was not seated properly in fixture; or maybe Colt forgot to fill it with Bondo. Whatever happened, drill job looks very unprofessional. http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m123/Bulldog257/ColtpinX.jpg http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m123/Bulldog257/ColtpinY.jpg Soooooo.... What's the problem? I was expecting to see some large gaping hole in the barrel or something. This probably looks a lot less worse to the human eye versus a camera lens on macro setting. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
First pic: Resized OP's original photo (3254 x 2448) to screen friendly 800 x 600. Second pic: Trimmed original and then resized to 800 width. It is evident that hole drilling location has been changed after initial spot. Maybe drill fixture moved, maybe barrel was not seated properly in fixture; or maybe Colt forgot to fill it with Bondo. Whatever happened, drill job looks very unprofessional. http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m123/Bulldog257/ColtpinX.jpg http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m123/Bulldog257/ColtpinY.jpg Soooooo.... What's the problem? I was expecting to see some large gaping hole in the barrel or something. This probably looks a lot less worse to the human eye versus a camera lens on macro setting. Why were you expecting so much? He clearly stated what the problem is. His description seemed pretty accurate to me, and it looks like complete shit. anyays what it is is the hole for attching the front sight gasblock to the barrel was starting in the wrong spot, drilled about a 32nd deep corrected and drilled in the right spot,
|
|
Wouldn't matter to me if that was a Colt, DPMS, Noveske, or LaRue....I would take it out and shoot the hell out of it. There is absolutely nothing there that is going to impact the function of the rifle.
I don't inspect my AR's quite that closely, so hell, I might even have one that looks like that. |
|
Quoted:
Look how rough the finish is on the FSB. Is that a sand casting but they use gravel in place of sand?
If it's a Colt it's a forging. The whole FSB isn't machined on ANY AR with a standard FSB that I know of. Just the holes for the barrel, the taper pin holes, sling swivel, and the front sight cutout. My sarcasm meter is twitching a bit  .
|
|
Quoted:
Look how rough the finish is on the FSB. Is that a sand casting but they use gravel in place of sand? Epic Fail Post... 
Im not even going to help you out on this one...please do some reasearch to see why this is so wrong. -J EDIT: flyboy1910 helped you out +1 E-Cookie to him. Yes, they are forged so they do not machine those surfaces. All FSBs that are not machined will look like this. |
| I'm all for getting a nice looking rifle for your money but that defect is tiny. I was expecting to see something much more noticeable. I think there's a difference between expecting a good finish and perfection. Are we buying nice equipment to use and maintain in good shape or are we buying a piece of art? This just goes overboard IMO, I would have no problem accepting that rifle. If this was Colt or Noveske it wouldn't matter to me. |
|
Quoted:
I'm all for getting a nice looking rifle for your money but that defect is tiny. I was expecting to see something much more noticeable. I think there's a difference between expecting a good finish and perfection. Are we buying nice equipment to use and maintain in good shape or are we buying a piece of art? This just goes overboard IMO, I would have no problem accepting that rifle. If this was Colt or Noveske it wouldn't matter to me. Yeah I can't say I would have noticed that either, and I'm pretty anal retentive about my guns (there's history on this forum to prove it). Over the years I've come to accept that ARs aren't pretty rifles in general. Ive seen flashing on forged uppers of many makes. Rack marks as well. They are designed for mass production. The FSB is a perfect example. A pretty much unmachined raw forging. If you look at the raw forgings of the uppers and lowers, there isnt much metal removed from the outside at all. Huge gouges and missing metal are one thing, but people are really splitting hairs in the tech forums these days. I believe BCM had an ad put awhile ago claiming they build ugly guns. BCM guns tend to work. That's enough for me. |
|
Wow. I never knew people took this stuff so personaly, I even got a private message requesting that I stop sharing the pictures I posted. HEY SHOW ME WHERE I SAID I WAS PISSED ABOUT ANY QUAILITY. I SAID I COULDNT OWN IT BECAUSE OF CALIFORNIA LAW...DO YOU UNDERSTAND JD! Only kids need to justify there ideas or likes. I don't really give a rats ass.
BTW I made some coin on the deal. |
|
I have to admit, I was expecting something more substantial. Like a seperate second hole about 1/16 or deeper. Personally, I could easily live with that.
Sloppy? Yes. Worth being without my rifle for a couple months? Nope. You could pull the BCG and peddle the upper on the EE then put a middy BCM on. Yeah, that's the ticket... 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt's QA inspectors care about a carbine that functions 100%....not that looks 'pretty'. All 4 of my Colts have EVER had 1 malfuntion, through thousands of rounds each, and all of them have come with some sort of 'love' mark out of the box from the factory. You want 'pretty', buy something else. You want a hard use tool that works 100% of the time, buy a Colt. That is a bullshit tired out excuse from the Colt apologists. Colt has obviously ramped up their focus towards the civilian market. When we civilians pay for stuff, especially when it costs $1000 or more, we want it made right. Not oops, oh it will still work, it is good enough for government work. I have purchased all manner of ARs or AR components that worked perfectly, and with the exception of one, the very first Bushmaster I bought back in 2003 or so, none of them displayed the cosmetic fuck ups that Colt puts out. Colt is an iconic name in the industry. There is too much competition and too many other companies doing it better for Colt to continue letting out some of the shit they have been. I'm far from being a Colt 'apologist'. I buy what works for me, and Colt AR's have a history of flawless performance for me. I could care less about a scratch here or there on my AR's, because mine are working rifles. They'll get beat around in a pickup on the ranch. If there were flaws in the carbine that affected function (such as an unstaked gas key), I'd care, no matter WHO made the gun or how much I paid for it. Maybe your priorities differ from mine, and that's ok. I wouldn't accept a carbine that had ANY function issues. I'll overlook a cosmetic flaw or three as long as it works. Every time. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt's QA inspectors care about a carbine that functions 100%....not that looks 'pretty'. All 4 of my Colts have EVER had 1 malfuntion, through thousands of rounds each, and all of them have come with some sort of 'love' mark out of the box from the factory. You want 'pretty', buy something else. You want a hard use tool that works 100% of the time, buy a Colt. That is a bullshit tired out excuse from the Colt apologists. Colt has obviously ramped up their focus towards the civilian market. When we civilians pay for stuff, especially when it costs $1000 or more, we want it made right. Not oops, oh it will still work, it is good enough for government work. I have purchased all manner of ARs or AR components that worked perfectly, and with the exception of one, the very first Bushmaster I bought back in 2003 or so, none of them displayed the cosmetic fuck ups that Colt puts out. Colt is an iconic name in the industry. There is too much competition and too many other companies doing it better for Colt to continue letting out some of the shit they have been. I'm far from being a Colt 'apologist'. I buy what works for me, and Colt AR's have a history of flawless performance for me. I could care less about a scratch here or there on my AR's, because mine are working rifles. They'll get beat around in a pickup on the ranch. If there were flaws in the carbine that affected function (such as an unstaked gas key), I'd care, no matter WHO made the gun or how much I paid for it. Maybe your priorities differ from mine, and that's ok. I wouldn't accept a carbine that had ANY function issues. I'll overlook a cosmetic flaw or three as long as it works. Every time. My priorities are that when I buy something new, it should be and look new. It doesn't matter how much I am going to use it or tear it up. It doesn't matter what industry it is in, when something is not "perfect" when it leaves the factory, it is sold as a blemished item or sent back through the line for rework. That is what people should expect, and usually do, when they are putting their money down on something. I bet you wouldn't knowingly leave a new car parking lot with a scratch down the side, without working out a significant discount, even with the promise of a later repair at no charge by the dealer. |
| The amount and frequency of these threads are an indicator that there is a problem at Colts QA/QC department. As a consumer, you need to demand a Rifle that not only shoots good...but looks good as well. I don't know if this is an indication of pushing out guns to keep up with demand or they hired the supervisors kid at the QA dept. Call the Colt company and demand they make the weapon correct. Just dealing with it tells the company there isn't a problem, so nothing needs corrected. You wouldn't take home a new car and when you noticed defects on it just deal with it?? No, you'd be back at the dealer ASAP demanding it gets fixed. No difference to me. When you accept sub par products, only the company makes out. |
|
What the hell... I can remember not long ago when people always said " BE AMERICAN, BUY AMERICAN " We made shit better than xyz country. I would NEVER buy a jap or Chinese tool or tools. building quality rifles should be a company's first priority and the same for the guy who does the final inspection.
Would you buy a TV if the remote had one or three bad buttons, fuck no, and the damn TV IS made in some shit hole country. This goes for any product, not just Colt. If its marked " blem " so be it, I don't think good company's sell blem products either. Out. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt's QA inspectors care about a carbine that functions 100%....not that looks 'pretty'. All 4 of my Colts have EVER had 1 malfuntion, through thousands of rounds each, and all of them have come with some sort of 'love' mark out of the box from the factory. You want 'pretty', buy something else. You want a hard use tool that works 100% of the time, buy a Colt. That is a bullshit tired out excuse from the Colt apologists. Colt has obviously ramped up their focus towards the civilian market. When we civilians pay for stuff, especially when it costs $1000 or more, we want it made right. Not oops, oh it will still work, it is good enough for government work. I have purchased all manner of ARs or AR components that worked perfectly, and with the exception of one, the very first Bushmaster I bought back in 2003 or so, none of them displayed the cosmetic fuck ups that Colt puts out. Colt is an iconic name in the industry. There is too much competition and too many other companies doing it better for Colt to continue letting out some of the shit they have been. I'm far from being a Colt 'apologist'. I buy what works for me, and Colt AR's have a history of flawless performance for me. I could care less about a scratch here or there on my AR's, because mine are working rifles. They'll get beat around in a pickup on the ranch. If there were flaws in the carbine that affected function (such as an unstaked gas key), I'd care, no matter WHO made the gun or how much I paid for it. Maybe your priorities differ from mine, and that's ok. I wouldn't accept a carbine that had ANY function issues. I'll overlook a cosmetic flaw or three as long as it works. Every time. My priorities are that when I buy something new, it should be and look new. It doesn't matter how much I am going to use it or tear it up. It doesn't matter what industry it is in, when something is not "perfect" when it leaves the factory, it is sold as a blemished item or sent back through the line for rework. That is what people should expect, and usually do, when they are putting their money down on something. I bet you wouldn't knowingly leave a new car parking lot with a scratch down the side, without working out a significant discount, even with the promise of a later repair at no charge by the dealer. Guns are not vehicles. I'm not a "Colt apologist" either. Actually, I defend no brand without regard of my favorites. I really don't care if any gun that I buy (I'm not a collector) has a few scratches on it when I take possession of it. I see many members reference the "if I pay $1000 or more for a gun then it should be perfect..." a lot. What does the dollar amount have to do with it? If scratches bother those members so much then wouldn't a scratch bother them too if it was a $400 "plinker?" If everone knows that Colt apparently "doesn't care" about finish work then why do those people continue to purchase Colts only to complain about after the fact? It makes no sense. If you don't like something then common sense dictates to stay away from it, right? I want something that's in spec. I received three Noveske lowers in row & not one of them was in spec even after sending them back. Needless-to-say I don't buy Noveske anymore. I will, however, continue to purchase Colt (scratches), LMT (scratches), BCM (scratches), DD (scratches), etc. None of those high end brands brands were purchased as blems either. And I was diagnosed with OCD a long time ago. To each his own I reckon. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt's QA inspectors care about a carbine that functions 100%....not that looks 'pretty'. All 4 of my Colts have EVER had 1 malfuntion, through thousands of rounds each, and all of them have come with some sort of 'love' mark out of the box from the factory. You want 'pretty', buy something else. You want a hard use tool that works 100% of the time, buy a Colt. That is a bullshit tired out excuse from the Colt apologists. Colt has obviously ramped up their focus towards the civilian market. When we civilians pay for stuff, especially when it costs $1000 or more, we want it made right. Not oops, oh it will still work, it is good enough for government work. I have purchased all manner of ARs or AR components that worked perfectly, and with the exception of one, the very first Bushmaster I bought back in 2003 or so, none of them displayed the cosmetic fuck ups that Colt puts out. Colt is an iconic name in the industry. There is too much competition and too many other companies doing it better for Colt to continue letting out some of the shit they have been. I'm far from being a Colt 'apologist'. I buy what works for me, and Colt AR's have a history of flawless performance for me. I could care less about a scratch here or there on my AR's, because mine are working rifles. They'll get beat around in a pickup on the ranch. If there were flaws in the carbine that affected function (such as an unstaked gas key), I'd care, no matter WHO made the gun or how much I paid for it. Maybe your priorities differ from mine, and that's ok. I wouldn't accept a carbine that had ANY function issues. I'll overlook a cosmetic flaw or three as long as it works. Every time. My priorities are that when I buy something new, it should be and look new. It doesn't matter how much I am going to use it or tear it up. It doesn't matter what industry it is in, when something is not "perfect" when it leaves the factory, it is sold as a blemished item or sent back through the line for rework. That is what people should expect, and usually do, when they are putting their money down on something. I bet you wouldn't knowingly leave a new car parking lot with a scratch down the side, without working out a significant discount, even with the promise of a later repair at no charge by the dealer. Guns are not vehicles. I'm not a "Colt apologist" either. Actually, I defend no brand without regard of my favorites. I really don't care if any gun that I buy (I'm not a collector) has a few scratches on it when I take possession of it. I see many members reference the "if I pay $1000 or more for a gun then it should be perfect..." a lot. What does the dollar amount have to do with it? If scratches bother those members so much then wouldn't a scratch bother them too if it was a $400 "plinker?" If everone knows that Colt apparently "doesn't care" about finish work then why do those people continue to purchase Colts only to complain about after the fact? It makes no sense. If you don't like something then common sense dictates to stay away from it, right? I want something that's in spec. I received three Noveske lowers in row & not one of them was in spec even after sending them back. Needless-to-say I don't buy Noveske anymore. I will, however, continue to purchase Colt (scratches), LMT (scratches), BCM (scratches), DD (scratches), etc. None of those high end brands brands were purchased as blems either. And I was diagnosed with OCD a long time ago. To each his own I reckon. How does the average person "know" that Colt doesn't care about finish? That is a position that is only held here by Colt apologist. If you look through their website, it says something to the effect that they hold themselves to the highest of standards, as that is their tradition. Perhaps they should tire-strap a big red flag to their ARs, so that any time someone is inspecting one they know that Colt doesn't care about any small cosmetic defects, and that the customer should take it or leave it. I don't even understand why we continue having this conversation. There is no other firearms manufacturer, AR or otherwise, that is given the kind of slack by a select few people on this board. It is one thing to cheat yourself, and convince yourself it is okay. But it is completely another thing when those same people try and tell someone else they are wrong for belatedly discovering something that shouldn't have been let out of the factory, or for passing on a sale for another of the same type of defect. That is complete bullshit. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt and quality control are two things you'll read a lot about of late... Ain't that the truth. New guys show up everyday and their very first post is bitching about a problem with their Colt. This Colt hate is getting really old too.
Do they make some mistakes? Fucking right. But consider how many rifles Colt makes compared to other manufacturers. I'd agree if in the past 2 mos we didn't have 3 different armorers from the military saying the colts basically sucked and that the qc, reliability, and function was an issue |