[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Current production thoughts (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 1/16/2010 5:30:22 PM EDT
|
Okay we all know these types of threads usually degenerate into mud slinging. Hopefully the fact that I post this in the Industry forum will help mitigate that.
I just picked up a new production SN 79XXX 6920. In my opinion, the workmanship quality is slightly less when compared to my older, large pin 6920 SN 32XXX. My old Colt had nearly flawless finish and cleaner machining. Even with all the factory "oil" on it, racking the action was as smooth as butter. On the new Colt, there is noticeable grittiness, but that is to be expected in a new rifle. Also, the takedown and pivot pins on the old Colt go in and out easily from the start. The pivot pin on the new Colt has to be hammered out as well as back in. Again on of those things that should loosen up with time, but it reminds me of a RRA.  I've noticed an increase in the number of threads complaining of Colt cosmetic issues. As far as I can remember, those were nearly non-existent a few years ago.
Stakings are good, FCG looks great, barrel looks great, BCG looks great. I'm sure it will shoot just fine when I get a chance to go to the range. Not really worried about the aesthetics of the rifle, but it makes me wonder: Has Colt taken shortcuts in production? Edit to add: I didn't take pics, but the inside of the buttstocks are different as well. The new one has a bunch of grooves while the old one is smooth. A few photos: New carrying handle, not the raised ridge inside 
Old carrying handle, very smooth 
New lower receiver, again the ridge inside the trigger guard 
Old lower, the raised ridge is ground down alot further. 
Crop circles? 
Okay I don't know what this is, discoloration in the annodizing? There were little spots like this all over the receiver, but they all went away with CLP. This could be from rubbing in the box while in storage? 
Rough surface of the receiver extension 
Some kind of gouging. The shiny spots don't turn black when Aluma-Black is applied. 
|
|
so...uh..how does it shoot? does it work? I tihnk if you are going to start a "my colt looks ugly" thread. you might as well have kept it in AR discussion. Its very likely the posts after mine are going to get rougher then what I said. Colt has not slipped or cut corners etc. looks was never a concern. Its meant to be shot.
"Stakings are good, FCG looks great, barrel looks great, BCG looks great. I'm sure it will shoot just fine when I get a chance to go to the range. Not really worried about the aesthetics of the rifle, but it makes me wonder: " then you sure spent a lot of time pointing them out 
|
|
You could say that in an aesthetic sense....Colt is taking shortcuts. BUT Let's look a the product. We're talking about an AR-15. Though craftsmanship is a plus on ANY firearm, the AR-15 is designed in a fashion that allows production line manufacturing. It allows Colt to turn out a large quantity of CORE quality firearms at a market dictated pace. You can be rest assured that the bolt and barrel are truly proofed. EACH AND EVERY ONE. They are also, on a part for part basis, Magnetic Particle Checked for cracks....unlike other companies who mark every part as MPC when they are actually tested on a sample per lot basis. The lots of parts ( such as pins, hammers, sears, or what have you ) that come to Colt from outside vendors have to be checked by sample basis in the metrology lab before the lots are accepted and put on to the floor. Except for FN, I sincerely doubt that ANYONE else is doing this except ArmaLite for their DMR guns for the Brits and their select guns sent to the U.S. Military. Bushmaster probably does it for their Government customers...but not for the civilian lines. Colt is the ONLY company that can afford to do proper inpection and metrology across their entire line Military, LE and Civilian. Now, in order to compete in a VERY brisk market...Colt needs to get guns to the selling floor....and as many as possible. The way to do this, and compete monetarily in todays market ( remember you PAY a premium for the important Q.C. that Colt does perform ) is for them to relax the cosmetic requirements that they normally add to their non military customers. Relaxing the cosmetic requirements allows Colt to put serious ARs on the market at a price that allows them to move. Remember....a Colt on the dealer's shelf or in Colt's Warehouse is doing no one any good. Overhead costs money. People are willing to pay for Colt for a reason....but cosmetics, while not unimportant, are subservient to overall function when it comes to the AR-15. If the market ever slows way down again, you may see Colt use spare production time to allow for the cosmetic finishing you have seen on past guns. You will also see a spike in the price....BUT it will be worth it. Either way...fret not that the Pony is a bit rough. It's got the Quality where it needs to be...in the the overall production specs. |
|
Quoted:
Now, in order to compete in a VERY brisk market...Colt needs to get guns to the selling floor....and as many as possible. The way to do this, and compete monetarily in todays market ( remember you PAY a premium for the important Q.C. that Colt does perform ) is for them to relax the cosmetic requirements that they normally add to their non military customers. Relaxing the cosmetic requirements allows Colt to put serious ARs on the market at a price that allows them to move. See this is exactly what I don't get. Colt was selling 6920s as soon as batches were released. They were around 1100-1200 when a batch was released and they shot up to 1400-1700 inbetween. They even sold at those ridiculously high prices.They maintained a high level of performance and aesthetic quality. Now with the cosmetic shortcuts, there are alot more rifles around, but they are still selling at their old price of around 1100-1200 (save for those Christmas specials where they dropped to sub-1000 prices). So even with those savings in the cosmetic department, the end result is that they are still selling for the same price, although with more rifles to go around. So, do you think the increased availability at the same price is a good trade-off? Do you think this re-newed interest in the civilian market has anything to do with the release of the M4 TDP? Thanks for the meaningful post. 
Quoted:
so...uh..how does it shoot? does it work? I tihnk if you are going to start a "my colt looks ugly" thread. you might as well have kept it in AR discussion. Its very likely the posts after mine are going to get rougher then what I said. Colt has not slipped or cut corners etc. looks was never a concern. Its meant to be shot. "Stakings are good, FCG looks great, barrel looks great, BCG looks great. I'm sure it will shoot just fine when I get a chance to go to the range. Not really worried about the aesthetics of the rifle, but it makes me wonder: " then you sure spent a lot of time pointing them out This was the BS I'm trying to avoid. I inspected the rifle when I bought it. I saw the cosmetic defects. I know that this rifle is going to be a working rifle (to replace my old patrol rifle). I still bought it because it's not going to just sit around and look pretty. For duty rifles, I can choose between RRA and Colt. The RRA guns are significantly cheaper and alot prettier, yet I bought the Colt, just like I did several years back. As far as I can tell, it seems like they want to sell more and make more money. That is, after all, what businesses are about. I just hate seeing that they reduced quality slightly to do that (yes any reduction in any aspect is a reduction in overall quality). |
|
then I dont understand the point you are trying to make.
you want to avoid that (very understandable) yet you post it in the one place on this site that the most people that couldnt care less stay. to me and most here. quality in a COMBAT GUN menas how well it works and shoots, not what the finish looks like. |
|
Quoted:
then I dont understand the point you are trying to make. you want to avoid that (very understandable) yet you post it in the one place on this site that the most people that couldnt care less stay. to me and most here. quality in a COMBAT GUN menas how well it works and shoots, not what the finish looks like. But why the degradation in quality? Why the cost-cutting measures? Is it because they want more profit, or is it that they aren't making enough money? If it is the latter reason, it could lead to desperation and other cost-cutting measures. |
I see your point. I like Colt because the colts I shoot are older than I am, have been heavily used since purchase, and still shoot great. They're great guns, and they last. I don't have the money to buy tons of AR15s, so I prefer quality over quantity. This would be a big turn off for me. However, luckily there is a good source of LEO colts nearby that has competitive prices, so when I do eventually buy, I can inspect it before I make the purchase. But I'd probably want to do that for any brand of AR15 I buy, not just Colt. The extra 300 over a bushmaster is worth it if I get a gun that I know will last me another 20 or 30 years.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
then I dont understand the point you are trying to make. you want to avoid that (very understandable) yet you post it in the one place on this site that the most people that couldnt care less stay. to me and most here. quality in a COMBAT GUN menas how well it works and shoots, not what the finish looks like. But why the degradation in quality? Why the cost-cutting measures? Is it because they want more profit, or is it that they aren't making enough money? If it is the latter reason, it could lead to desperation and other cost-cutting measures. wharquality? the looks? what TF does looks have to do with quality of a gun that will likely look 10 times worse in 6 months I doubt its money. they just won a contract of over 126 million to supply M240s and still ar the only supplier of the M4 carbine. colt canda also supplies to every other country thay colt Defense doesnt. They recently bought over 6 million dollars in CNC machines and have revamped their whole colts MFG line. WHat you are pointing out is a total nonissue for a fighting gun, The company probably is doing better now money wise then it has in 30 years. cosmetics aside. the other things you mention will smooth up with USE. I still dont get why and when comabt rifles suddently had to be as pretty and smooth as a L.C. Smith, People think the price should reflect looks not function. this is because of shit brands like RRA who look good but thats about it. The guns where never meat to be collectors items to be wiped with a diaper and dressed up like barbie dolls just to show off online. I own colt AR15s from 68 to lasy may and none of them are pretty., that early preban look better stuff is bullshit, I have some that look rough as hell. its gotten into guys heads here that stuff has to look perfect no matter what to reflect quality. 99 percent of colts costumers ae military and couldbnt give a fuck how it looks. For some reason the guys that will never use the guns thinks col should make them look perfect just for them so they can show off online, its not going to happen, even if they do boycott and bad mouth, those who know, will still buy a colt WEAPON not high dollar bragging rights not fit for a appleseed shoot. Im not saying you dont know better but you gotta start seeing them as what they really are |
|
Quoted:
But why the degradation in quality? Why the cost-cutting measures? Is it because they want more profit, or is it that they aren't making enough money? If it is the latter reason, it could lead to desperation and other cost-cutting measures. What degradation in quality are you talking about? Does it not shoot as accurately as the old Colt and is it less reliable? "Looks" and "Quality" are not the same thing... If it's less accurate or won't work reliably, then yes there is a degradation in quality issue and you win the award for being the first to point out that Colt really is cutting corners, but for today you simply win the award for ignorance. Now move along... |
|
More consumers in a hotter political climate = A LOT more demand = MORE ugly guns.
When the whips are cracking, it's just common sense that things are going to slip. Is it going to be function and build quality NO, is it going to mean some sloppier machining and more dings, dents, mars etc..that are inconsequential to the customer base Colt builds these Rifles for (L.E./Mil) YES...we are seeing that. We all want to have our cake and eat it too, but at the end of the day Colt still builds the finest AR-15 in the industry. As far as looks, well you either search around and hand pick yourself a pretty one or you deal with what you get. Either way, you going to get a stick that you can bet your life on. |
|
As expected, the rifle shot well.
I see aesthetics as attention to detail. More ugly to me means less attention to detail. As I was cleaning the rifle, I noticed that the locking lugs are squared off. My old Colt bolt has the corner that would come in contact with the barrel extension beveled. How much does this matter? Probably nothing, but it looks like cosmetics is not the only thing Colt is cutting costs in. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: then I dont understand the point you are trying to make. you want to avoid that (very understandable) yet you post it in the one place on this site that the most people that couldnt care less stay. to me and most here. quality in a COMBAT GUN menas how well it works and shoots, not what the finish looks like. But why the degradation in quality? Why the cost-cutting measures? Is it because they want more profit, or is it that they aren't making enough money? If it is the latter reason, it could lead to desperation and other cost-cutting measures. Indeed. You actually answered your own question. You are correct, it is all about profit. Now, there could be a management decision that has caused the production lines to omit the steps that cleaned the forge lines off of the receivers and carrying handles. This allows Colt to turn out more rifles ( that are still the best in the industry considering the voulme of production ) at a faster rate. This lowers per unit manufacturing costs, decreases lead time and increases the profit margin....and, in a still somewhat capitalist country, this is what it is all about. You asked, essentially, why did the prices fluctate so strangely compared to the unit quality? Two reasons, demand and current economics. Since prior to the housing bubble popping and the purposely engineered Wall Street Meltdown; the economy was in a different state than it is now. Trust me when I tell you that every major company in the U.S ( and a hell of a lot of small and medium ones ) are doing everything to impact the bottom line so that it trends to the black. In the middle of the economic crisis was the socio political crisis of the Obama Administration taking the reins on the Fast Coach to Hell. You could now sell a rifle that was worth 1150 dollars for 1700 dollars and IT WOULD SELL. That is the key. It is ALL economics. Despite this, Colt is still turning out rifles that shoot and perform well ove rth industry standard. Also, dont worry about the squared off lug ends. I have rifles with both squared and softened edges....all perform equally and have for years.....some from the mid seventies. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
then I dont understand the point you are trying to make. you want to avoid that (very understandable) yet you post it in the one place on this site that the most people that couldnt care less stay. to me and most here. quality in a COMBAT GUN menas how well it works and shoots, not what the finish looks like. But why the degradation in quality? Why the cost-cutting measures? Is it because they want more profit, or is it that they aren't making enough money? If it is the latter reason, it could lead to desperation and other cost-cutting measures. Indeed. You actually answered your own question. You are correct, it is all about profit. Now, there could be a management decision that has caused the production lines to omit the steps that cleaned the forge lines off of the receivers and carrying handles. This allows Colt to turn out more rifles ( that are still the best in the industry considering the voulme of production ) at a faster rate. This lowers per unit manufacturing costs, decreases lead time and increases the profit margin....and, in a still somewhat capitalist country, this is what it is all about. You asked, essentially, why did the prices fluctate so strangely compared to the unit quality? Two reasons, demand and current economics. Since prior to the housing bubble popping and the purposely engineered Wall Street Meltdown; the economy was in a different state than it is now. Trust me when I tell you that every major company in the U.S ( and a hell of a lot of small and medium ones ) are doing everything to impact the bottom line so that it trends to the black. In the middle of the economic crisis was the socio political crisis of the Obama Administration taking the reins on the Fast Coach to Hell. You could now sell a rifle that was worth 1150 dollars for 1700 dollars and IT WOULD SELL. That is the key. It is ALL economics. Despite this, Colt is still turning out rifles that shoot and perform well ove rth industry standard. Also, dont worry about the squared off lug ends. I have rifles with both squared and softened edges....all perform equally and have for years.....some from the mid seventies. Thank you. This was the kind of reply I was looking for. Not "Looks don't matter, just shoot it." 
|
|
Quoted:
As expected, the rifle shot well. I see aesthetics as attention to detail. More ugly to me means less attention to detail. As I was cleaning the rifle, I noticed that the locking lugs are squared off. My old Colt bolt has the corner that would come in contact with the barrel extension beveled. How much does this matter? Probably nothing, but it looks like cosmetics is not the only thing Colt is cutting costs in. Let's see here... The rifle shot well, however you noticed that the locking lugs are squared off which can only mean Colt is cutting costs? I just want to make sure I understand your statement properly. My question to you is, do you have loose or tight bolt lockup? My guess is it's the latter and the rifle shoots like a dream. But hey you never know... It sounds like you are out to make a point that Colt's are not "what they once were", oh and to stir up $&#! in the Colt forum of course. So far you have only succeeded to accomplish one of your two objectives and it isn't the first one I mentioned...
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
As expected, the rifle shot well. I see aesthetics as attention to detail. More ugly to me means less attention to detail. As I was cleaning the rifle, I noticed that the locking lugs are squared off. My old Colt bolt has the corner that would come in contact with the barrel extension beveled. How much does this matter? Probably nothing, but it looks like cosmetics is not the only thing Colt is cutting costs in. Let's see here... The rifle shot well, however you noticed that the locking lugs are squared off which can only mean Colt is cutting costs? I just want to make sure I understand your statement properly. My question to you is, do you have loose or tight bolt lockup? My guess is it's the latter and the rifle shoots like a dream. But hey you never know... It sounds like you are out to make a point that Colt's are not "what they once were", oh and to stir up $&#! in the Colt forum of course. So far you have only succeeded to accomplish one of your two objectives and it isn't the first one I mentioned... Not trying to stir the pot. Only posts like yours is doing that. There have been two helpful and logical posts regarding the differences in manufacturing. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: As expected, the rifle shot well. I see aesthetics as attention to detail. More ugly to me means less attention to detail. As I was cleaning the rifle, I noticed that the locking lugs are squared off. My old Colt bolt has the corner that would come in contact with the barrel extension beveled. How much does this matter? Probably nothing, but it looks like cosmetics is not the only thing Colt is cutting costs in. Let's see here... The rifle shot well, however you noticed that the locking lugs are squared off which can only mean Colt is cutting costs? I just want to make sure I understand your statement properly. My question to you is, do you have loose or tight bolt lockup? My guess is it's the latter and the rifle shoots like a dream. But hey you never know... It sounds like you are out to make a point that Colt's are not "what they once were", oh and to stir up $&#! in the Colt forum of course. So far you have only succeeded to accomplish one of your two objectives and it isn't the first one I mentioned... Not trying to stir the pot. Only posts like yours is doing that. There have been two helpful and logical posts regarding the differences in manufacturing. Yeah, it can be like poking a bee hive with sttick with us Colt guys. I am very protective of Colt, myself...but I have also been known to give them the ol "WTF???" many times. The thing is, there are a lot of folks who, like me grew up with Colt and, though they have had some bad times, they haven't jumped the shark like Smith and Wesson did. When that idiot from Scottsdale AZ bought them...that was it for me. Someday...maybe the worm will turn. Anyhow, the thing is that there are a LOT of folks who don't know ANYTHING about manufacturing who try to come off sounding like they are experts in the field. Essentially a lot of them are trying to say their 550 dollar Oly is just as good as a Colt because it hasn't ever had a malfunction. That's fine to believe it...but to statre it as fact would be an outright lie. That is one of the things that gets a lot of the Colt guys in a tizzy. Even me. Frankly, being in very hi tech ( but not too hi tech ) manufacturing, I have a feel for the things that a company like Colt has to do in order to make their product. Your question was sensible and at least you have the courtest you ask the question and re-iterate when you did not understand. This is much better than 99.99 percent of the folks out there spouting internet bullshit. Too, you still had the sense to buy a Colt....so I know you're on the right track.  |
| For me weather new or old does not matter. I have a 6920 8 years old that looks just like those pics without crop circles of course. I have a new 6920 less than a year old that looks flawless. The older I would trust my life with and have. The minor flaws don't bother me, gives it character. Plus if its a duty rifle its going to get banged around real quick anyway and you wont notice. I think when your pumping out all those rifles for mil. LE and civ. the handling of the rifles might go by the way side. Some of the marks on those pics look as if the lower or upper just got dinged before the finish was put on. The others like the trigger seam is something I have seen on Colts for a decade. As a department armorer I have handled hundreds of Colts over the years and I don't think this is necessarily a new thing. I remember in 2005 we got a shipment of 6933's and half of them hand a strange blue/ purple tint to the lowers only. But they are still in use and have not had any issue that I know of. JMHO. |
|
Quoted:
Not trying to stir the pot. Only posts like yours is doing that. There have been two helpful and logical posts regarding the differences in manufacturing. Not trying to stir the pot? You think that coming into the Colt forum and posting a thread about how the quality of Colt products is degrading because of cosmetic differences and that the company is taking cost cutting shortcuts in the manufacturing process because of it, is not stirring the pot?
Well I'll play along and answer your OP in a nice PC way. I think the quality of Colt firearms is neither better or worse today than it has been over the last several decades and I do not think Colt is taking any cost cutting shortcuts in order to profit more. I have several pre-ban Colt rifles that you would probably think "look worse" than my latest two LE6920's that I picked up this last year... I am sorry if you feel like I am somehow stirring the pot, but you need to realize we see these types of threads often and they are never well intentioned. It's always a poo flinging thread. Also you might want to know that if someone comes into the Colt forum and creates a thread stating how great their new Colt looks and how the finish is perfect, they are going to see similar responses. No where in the Colt mission statement does it say "We are going to make the most beautiful guns", it's just not an important factor in fighting wars and saving lives. Reliability however is... |
|
Those scuffs in front of the ejection port is a VP triangle proof mark that got stamped over and over.
All the buffer tubes in the past year or two have those pit marks in them. I don't know why. The forging flash on the carry handle and lower is normal. This comes and goes. |
| I don't think profit is the motivation for "cutting corners." When a production number has to be met in a certain time frame then certain non essential steps may be omitted. I would make a fairly certain guess that the TDP criteria is still being followed and the rifles are still being made to spec. |
|
I disagree that the newer Colts are neither better nor worse than the older ones. I think the newer LE models(since the ban ended) are some of the best models that have been available to the public, EVER, from Colt's. And, unencumbered by crass government interference, it will only get better.
|
|
Quoted:
Those scuffs in front of the ejection port is a VP triangle proof mark that got stamped over and over. All the buffer tubes in the past year or two have those pit marks in them. I don't know why. The forging flash on the carry handle and lower is normal. This comes and goes. Thanks for the info. Can you elaborate on the proof mark? What is that one supposed to mean? |
|
My 1975 SP1 has the forging flash inside the trigger guard area, so you are incorrect there. Now, how do you think squared locking lugs on the bolt are a cost cutting move? Does the bolt like up solidly, and does the rifle function as it should? You don't buy a Colt for looks, you buy it because it works. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for the info. Can you elaborate on the proof mark? What is that one supposed to mean? I'm quite sure they proof fire every rifle to find potential flaws. this it means they shot a very high overpressure round through the gun to see if it fails, if it didnt they prof mark it and sale it, this is a processes damn near as old as guns are. I cant believe you didnt know that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for the info. Can you elaborate on the proof mark? What is that one supposed to mean? I'm quite sure they proof fire every rifle to find potential flaws. this it means they shot a very high overpressure round through the gun to see if it fails, if it didnt they prof mark it and sale it, this is a processes damn near as old as guns are. I cant believe you didnt know that. I didn't know that they marked the guns after test firing. |
|
Proof fire and the proof mark are two different things.
Proof mark means the completed weapon underwent a final inspection and was given the seal of approval. Proof fire a stress test for the bolt. Similar concept but they're not directly related to one another in this case. |
| I love Colt ARs.....I think they are the best. That being said, their finish is often times shit. If you're going to buy a Colt, you just have to accept that. I have a 6920.....the finish is shit, but I love it and would never get rid of it. If you buy a Colt and expect the finish to be top-notch (or hell, normal for that matter)...you're going to be disappointed. |
|
I don't believe I bothered to read another one of these threads. They're all the same. Out of the millions of Colt rifles out there, 8 or 10 people have posted this "diminished quality" nonsense. I am probably one of the pickiest people when comes to my guns. And I want them to look perfect when I buy a new one. And every single Colt (rifles and pistols) of mine has been an absolute piece of art out of the box. After I play with them though they have a slightly different aesthetic appeal.
As far as the OP's rifle goes, if it bothers you that much that you'll get on here and bitch about it, then send it back. If I got one that looked that bad in person I would. But then again I can make anything look like crap with the right camera, lens, and lighting. |
|
Quoted:
I love Colt ARs.....I think they are the best. That being said, their finish is often times shit. If you're going to buy a Colt, you just have to accept that. I have a 6920.....the finish is shit, but I love it and would never get rid of it. If you buy a Colt and expect the finish to be top-notch (or hell, normal for that matter)...you're going to be disappointed. I beg to disagree. I've owned plenty of Colts for the past 17+ years that I've been playing with them and most of them look great. No, they are not as pretty as a Daniel Defense or an RRA, but they don't look like "shit" either (not until I get my hands on them, that is )
Colt has made millions of AR-15 types - you bound to see a few with less than desirable finish. Say that they make five ugly rifles per week. At the end of the year, there would be 260 ugly Colt rifles floating around - enough to get a dozen or so arfcomers all pissed off, riled up and then come here to post about how horrible their Colts look
|
|
Quoted:
I love Colt ARs.....I think they are the best. That being said, their finish is often times shit. If you're going to buy a Colt, you just have to accept that. I have a 6920.....the finish is shit, but I love it and would never get rid of it. If you buy a Colt and expect the finish to be top-notch (or hell, normal for that matter)...you're going to be disappointed. whatever I own over 15 and they look very good take it easy noob |
|
Quoted:
I love Colt ARs.....I think they are the best. That being said, their finish is often times shit. If you're going to buy a Colt, you just have to accept that. I have a 6920.....the finish is shit, but I love it and would never get rid of it. If you buy a Colt and expect the finish to be top-notch (or hell, normal for that matter)...you're going to be disappointed. The number of threads dedicated to Colt's fit/finish wouldn't continually be popping up here and elsewhere (and by the way, they tend to be looooooonnnnnnngggg threads)....if there wasn't an issue with their fit/finish. I really don't think there is an anti-Colt conspiracy going on here......just the facts. Colt's fit/finish is definitely subpar with the industry standard. Now, if I had to pick a rifle for battle.......Colt #1............LMT #2 (and not a distant #2 I might add). Who give a crap about fit/finish when the chips are down. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love Colt ARs.....I think they are the best. That being said, their finish is often times shit. If you're going to buy a Colt, you just have to accept that. I have a 6920.....the finish is shit, but I love it and would never get rid of it. If you buy a Colt and expect the finish to be top-notch (or hell, normal for that matter)...you're going to be disappointed. The number of threads dedicated to Colt's fit/finish wouldn't continually be popping up here and elsewhere (and by the way, they tend to be looooooonnnnnnngggg threads)....if there wasn't an issue with their fit/finish. I really don't think there is an anti-Colt conspiracy going on here......just the facts. Colt's fit/finish is definitely subpar with the industry standard. Now, if I had to pick a rifle for battle.......Colt #1............LMT #2 (and not a distant #2 I might add). Who give a crap about fit/finish when the chips are down. haha what!!!? colt is the industry standard. not some stupid ass half shit copy that looks pretty. those threads are long because of all the whiners who wanted a colt t resale later if obama bans them, they know colt wil get more. So they whine when it isnt pretty. those "ugly" colts wont resale well at the gun show. there is a lot of hate in the forum for colt mstly from guys that dont know shit about fighting guns they can complain all they want over it, and even stop buying them its not going to hurt the company. |
|
Quoted: As I pointed out in another similar thread, even if a thread like this popped up every week (meaning 52 of these threads a year) and even if that only accounts for 1/3rd of all the rifles with similar issues, that is still only 1% of the rifles Colt makes in a year.Quoted: I love Colt ARs.....I think they are the best. That being said, their finish is often times shit. If you're going to buy a Colt, you just have to accept that. I have a 6920.....the finish is shit, but I love it and would never get rid of it. If you buy a Colt and expect the finish to be top-notch (or hell, normal for that matter)...you're going to be disappointed. The number of threads dedicated to Colt's fit/finish wouldn't continually be popping up here and elsewhere (and by the way, they tend to be looooooonnnnnnngggg threads)....if there wasn't an issue with their fit/finish. I really don't think there is an anti-Colt conspiracy going on here......just the facts. Colt's fit/finish is definitely subpar with the industry standard. Now, if I had to pick a rifle for battle.......Colt #1............LMT #2 (and not a distant #2 I might add). Who give a crap about fit/finish when the chips are down. So assuming you saw one of these threads every week, its still account for a very small precentage of the Colts out there. It seems to me that the OP has made his mind up, and is unwilling to address posts which refute his hypothesis, specifically the ones that mention similar athestic issues on older Colts and newer owners with flawless Colts. My most recent 6920 was flawless, and was bar none the prettiest AR I've seen since the election, including Noveskes and a DD I compared it to.... |
|
OP - you'd be devastated by how ugly the M4's I work with are. Scratches on the receivers everywhere, finish worn and missing. Stocks with gouges in them. Granted, we put most of those marks on them, but they work well, and are pretty reliable.
My biggest complaint about the M4 as it leaves the factory is the 4 position tube. I have no idea why they can't drill another two holes in the tube so I can run the gun when wearing gear more comfortably. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
As I pointed out in another similar thread, even if a thread like this popped up every week (meaning 52 of these threads a year) and even if that only accounts for 1/3rd of all the rifles with similar issues, that is still only 1% of the rifles Colt makes in a year.
Quoted:
I love Colt ARs.....I think they are the best. That being said, their finish is often times shit. If you're going to buy a Colt, you just have to accept that. I have a 6920.....the finish is shit, but I love it and would never get rid of it. If you buy a Colt and expect the finish to be top-notch (or hell, normal for that matter)...you're going to be disappointed. The number of threads dedicated to Colt's fit/finish wouldn't continually be popping up here and elsewhere (and by the way, they tend to be looooooonnnnnnngggg threads)....if there wasn't an issue with their fit/finish. I really don't think there is an anti-Colt conspiracy going on here......just the facts. Colt's fit/finish is definitely subpar with the industry standard. Now, if I had to pick a rifle for battle.......Colt #1............LMT #2 (and not a distant #2 I might add). Who give a crap about fit/finish when the chips are down. So assuming you saw one of these threads every week, its still account for a very small precentage of the Colts out there. It seems to me that the OP has made his mind up, and is unwilling to address posts which refute his hypothesis, specifically the ones that mention similar athestic issues on older Colts and newer owners with flawless Colts. My most recent 6920 was flawless, and was bar none the prettiest AR I've seen since the election, including Noveskes and a DD I compared it to.... No, I have just chosen to ignore most of the drivel that has been spewed. I did not make a "hypothesis". I asked some questions. There have been a few, informative posts that answered my questions and I am satisfied. |
| If a top notch finish is your top priority, then buy what makes you happy. Personally, when I go into home depot, I didn't "inspect" the forged shovel I bought to see if there were any unsightly paint drips on the steel, or to make sure the weld marks were perfect. I intend to dig with it, and just want to ensure its not one of those cheap pieces on crap that fold over when you stand on them. I personally have owned a dozen or so Colts over the years, and they have all had pretty good finishes on them, including the 6933 I just got. If you want extreme quality and you get your kilt stuck in your netherparts over a slight blemish, then you can always have a custom gun built and pay a lot more for it (and that is probably the only way you will get the same level of quality control on an AR15). Another thought is - don't you guys actually look at what you buy! I generally don't buy anything sight unseen, unless its from someone I have a lot of confidence in. |
|
Now if they only cost what a "high-end" shovel does......that would be great. I love the "tool" argument. Hell, everything is a tool.....my car is a tool, but I expect it to leave the factory without visible grind marks under the paint. If Colt would just sharpen up the fit/finish issue.....they would be absolutely PERFECT. I love em!
Colt, please don't repeat what you did with the 1911......after being "the company that all others were measured against" you got complacent.....quality suffered and many, many excellent competitors have chipped away at your market share as a result. Listen to the consumer. |
|
Quoted:
I've seen plenty of brand new Colts that were finished poorly. Don't know what the standard at the factory is, but it's not as high as many of their competitors as far as looks go. At least their stuff works well. Yes, I can definitely see what you mean. I was cleaning my Browning Citori the other day, and it reminded me that my Colt's look no where as pristine. |
|
Quoted:
Now if they only cost what a "high-end" shovel does......that would be great. I love the "tool" argument. Hell, everything is a tool.....my car is a tool, but I expect it to leave the factory without visible grind marks under the paint. If Colt would just sharpen up the fit/finish issue.....they would be absolutely PERFECT. I love em! Colt, please don't repeat what you did with the 1911......after being "the company that all others were measured against" you got complacent.....quality suffered and many, many excellent competitors have chipped away at your market share as a result. Listen to the consumer. They cost what they are supposed to cost. Most cheaper rifles do not offer the same quality. To get a *better* rifle than a Colt you will be paying a much higher premium. The only other manufacturer out there that is producing something on par with Colt for less is BCM. And by less I mean with in $100. Colt is 100% in spec when it comes to critical fit and finish not percieved fit and finish. Most commercial manufcaturers will only be concerned with superficial fit and finish aspects because they know the average consumer is an idiot and will pick a rifle on what "looks" better. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now if they only cost what a "high-end" shovel does......that would be great. I love the "tool" argument. Hell, everything is a tool.....my car is a tool, but I expect it to leave the factory without visible grind marks under the paint. If Colt would just sharpen up the fit/finish issue.....they would be absolutely PERFECT. I love em! Colt, please don't repeat what you did with the 1911......after being "the company that all others were measured against" you got complacent.....quality suffered and many, many excellent competitors have chipped away at your market share as a result. Listen to the consumer. They cost what they are supposed to cost. Most cheaper rifles do not offer the same quality. To get a *better* rifle than a Colt you will be paying a much higher premium. The only other manufacturer out there that is producing something on par with Colt for less is BCM. And by less I mean with in $100. Colt is 100% in spec when it comes to critical fit and finish not percieved fit and finish. Most commercial manufcaturers will only be concerned with superficial fit and finish aspects because they know the average consumer is an idiot and will pick a rifle on what "looks" better. The population of La La Land just increased by 1! "The average consumer is an idiot......."  That kind of thinking will get a company into trouble very, very fast......
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now if they only cost what a "high-end" shovel does......that would be great. I love the "tool" argument. Hell, everything is a tool.....my car is a tool, but I expect it to leave the factory without visible grind marks under the paint. If Colt would just sharpen up the fit/finish issue.....they would be absolutely PERFECT. I love em! Colt, please don't repeat what you did with the 1911......after being "the company that all others were measured against" you got complacent.....quality suffered and many, many excellent competitors have chipped away at your market share as a result. Listen to the consumer. They cost what they are supposed to cost. Most cheaper rifles do not offer the same quality. To get a *better* rifle than a Colt you will be paying a much higher premium. The only other manufacturer out there that is producing something on par with Colt for less is BCM. And by less I mean with in $100. Colt is 100% in spec when it comes to critical fit and finish not percieved fit and finish. Most commercial manufcaturers will only be concerned with superficial fit and finish aspects because they know the average consumer is an idiot and will pick a rifle on what "looks" better. The population of La La Land just increased by 1! "The average consumer is an idiot......." That kind of thinking will get a company into trouble very, very fast......Well I don't speak for or represent any gun company so what's your point.
ETA - WTF does the "lala land" comment mean? |
|
Look, I think the tool argument is right on the money. I have a $15,000 John Deere Tractor, and I'm pretty sure it has casting marks on the transmission, and flat steel fenders, had a little surface rust on it when I bought it new, and doesn't exactly have "sleek lines", nor has any farmer I ever talked too every really given a rip about that stuff. I guess it's because they are professionals and use the equipment as I do, and would rather it work for then next 10 years than have a perfect paint job. I also have a $1800 cattle chute that has weld lines on it, a dent or two, and had some surface rust on it from the sitting outside the co-op where I bought it (Oh my, I guess I need to talk to the quality control dept.!). I personally would rather it hold that 1800lb bull in place while he's getting rowdy than have a perfect paint job. I'm not saying that fit and finish is not nice to have and any product, but if it is of utmost importance, then go buy a nice old english double gun, AR15's (to me anyways) are a utility rifle through and through, not some safe queen with custom presentation grade walnut (I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder). Different strokes for different folks I guess. With all the above being said, the finish on my Colts looks great - but they have had the occasional scratch, or small thing that probably would have resulted in a QC posting from some, but all in all I have always been happy with Colt. My .02 - and worth exactly what you paid for it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now if they only cost what a "high-end" shovel does......that would be great. I love the "tool" argument. Hell, everything is a tool.....my car is a tool, but I expect it to leave the factory without visible grind marks under the paint. If Colt would just sharpen up the fit/finish issue.....they would be absolutely PERFECT. I love em! Colt, please don't repeat what you did with the 1911......after being "the company that all others were measured against" you got complacent.....quality suffered and many, many excellent competitors have chipped away at your market share as a result. Listen to the consumer. They cost what they are supposed to cost. Most cheaper rifles do not offer the same quality. To get a *better* rifle than a Colt you will be paying a much higher premium. The only other manufacturer out there that is producing something on par with Colt for less is BCM. And by less I mean with in $100. Colt is 100% in spec when it comes to critical fit and finish not percieved fit and finish. Most commercial manufcaturers will only be concerned with superficial fit and finish aspects because they know the average consumer is an idiot and will pick a rifle on what "looks" better. The population of La La Land just increased by 1! "The average consumer is an idiot......." That kind of thinking will get a company into trouble very, very fast......no a company woould never say it, but thats the truth of it if you think looks matter more than function to a cmpany that makes COMBAT GUNS FR GUYS IN COMBAT then you are in lala land sir colt is more worried about getting guns that work t guys that need them more than making them look pretty , if you cant except that, go hang out in the RRA industry section. colt does not make guns for whinners. yu need t be in with the guy that started the "oh my god the magpul asp put a brass mark on my lwer!" threaad |