User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:05:37 PM EDT
[#1]
 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:10:15 PM EDT
[#2]
Well educate us BRADD why did they add feedramps,they would not have been needed if they werent getting malfunctions that needed this specific design change or are you saying they just did it to add to the reliabilty because in my book if something is working fine there is no need for a change.So tell us what was the M4 FFEDRAMPS done for.So like I said no change is ever made unless needed to clear up a problem....next you will be telling me colt didnt have a bolt lug breaking problem either or barrel failure problem a few years back,so enlighten me AR expert.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:15:42 PM EDT
[#3]
Since M11293 asked...
Got a source for that?
Noone really knows why Colt changed the spec, but some feel it was because the web at the top of the receiver was not thick enough to accomodate the large NV optics employed by the military.
The feedramps were added because the carbines exhibited feeding problems with ammo in extreme cold weather. Had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
The LE6921 is just as available as the LE6920. All you have to do is either get the receiver SBR'd or have the FS permanently attached.
Pure speculation on your part, but others are thinking perhaps Colt is waiting to see what will happen in November. Only time will tell, but I think it's rash to jump to judgement when nobody knows why Colt is doing what it is doing. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:16:46 PM EDT
[#4]
Please, for God's sake, use better grammar. Bradd here is more convincing because he uses what we like to call 'punctuation'. Punctuation is used to separate complete thoughs so that rambling doesn't occure.
for example if i just type like this and don't use any punctuation at all and keep it all in one gigantic incomprehensible paragraph it becomes hard to read and then people become annoyed because they dont want to read what you have written because they have to fill in all the commas and periods in order to turn a slew of words into complete and separate ideas and they have a whole giant block of text to deal with and it makes it hard to concentrate because ideas aren't separated by spaces to form what we call paragraphs. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:18:20 PM EDT
[#5]
The barrel/lug issue would have happened to any manufacturer's platform as the M4's were being used by SF as light machine guns which is not what they, or the M16, were designed for. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:22:31 PM EDT
[#6]
What ever their reason it dosent justify their attitude because if they are waiting to see what happens in november then they can go down with john kerry the other flip flop master.He should be getting help from colt ....oh wait a minute he already does colt is not respecting the law and the second ammendment and kerry doesent either...I cant get over it the ban goes away but colt stays with it when it dosent have to...srew them and oh by the way Im still waiting for and answer as to why colt changed the design and added the ramps...couldnt be because a problem necessitated the ramps need,no couldnt be that....stay on trac and get your tounge out of colts ass,no matter how you suck up they are not sending you a free rifle..so back to the ramp question expert..the way you keep skirting questions I would swear your a liberal....there we go the new colt sloagan...COLT The Rilfe Of Liberals"They are so PC they should give up gun making all together.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:25:07 PM EDT
[#7]
The thing is it didnt happen to any other manufacture it happened to their barrel and M16s were not designed for sustained full auto but should be able to take the heat when commandos use full auto to break contact or give the illusion of a larger force than what they are...Oh and the feed ramp question please all great and powerfull OZ.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:25:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Go back up five posts and you will find your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:28:09 PM EDT
[#9]
Hard to think and chew gum at the same time .....I understand...thanks for the reply EXPERT.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:28:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Given that Colt is the only one making M4's for the military, who else could it happen to?
They were using their M4's for more than break contact, etc. That was the problem. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:29:29 PM EDT
[#11]
I just didn't feel like typing it again just because you missed it the first time. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:32:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Sometimes, designers make 'improvements'. Something does not always have to be broken to spontaneously create a modification for a particular product. For example, back in the day flattop ARs weren't so common in the military. Then, someone realized that it might be smarter to make an AR with rails so that optics could be easily attached. There was nothing necessarily wrong with the original design (you can put optics on an A2 upper), but many believed a top rail would make optics more convenient. Since then rails have been added to many military weapons, and red dot sights/ACOGs and the like employed into combat. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:32:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Im sure colt isnt the only contractor making barrels.And you are saying special forces were abusing the full auto..thats hard to beleive when those operators are the first to advocate single shot firing....I suppose you have facts to support SF units just wasting ammo on full auto or maybe now your an expert of SF SOPs.What info do you have on how they used full auto on that you made that BS unsubstantited factual comment.
I heard stories at barrels overheating at over 200 rounds and seizing weapons,maybe the heat treat on the barrels sucked or they used inferior materials to be quick and meet demand as the do make the barrels that go on production line weapons at their factory in house.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:36:19 PM EDT
[#14]
To N3rday we are not talking optics we are talking a very important action that is the feeding of the rifle with ammunition...so your saying they made the change because it was a good idea and no malfunctions necessited the change.I think there were and have heard there were malfunctions.Wether it was because of poor quality control I can only assume it is as no other M16s made ever needed them.I dont beleive they did it just because it was a good idea,I beleive there were problems in their carbine that dictated a solution.By the way should all my questions to Bradd now have to made through you or is he old enough and have the right facts to explain his beleifs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:42:13 PM EDT
[#15]
Dude, this topic has been discussed at great length on this site. The problem was the fact that the SF were using their M4's in LMG roles when they weren't designed to be used that way. The lightweight barrels would get hot and cause the rifle to flex at the junction of the barrel and the receiver. This caused the bolt to hit the lugs in the extension. It was an issue with the contour of the barrel in conjunction with the rate of fire not who manufacturered the barrel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:44:53 PM EDT
[#16]
My whole point it was a colt barrel.If the M4 govt profile couldnt take why are other manufacturers barrels fine.I have a buddy who has a real 16 carbine and his Bushy made M4 profile barrel works just fine when you dump and has been that way for alot of rounds....but like I said your source of facts please.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:47:02 PM EDT
[#17]
Ok...since you have chosen not to go back and read my original post, the feedramps were added because the carbines exhibited feed problems in extreme cold. It is an issue experienced because the rifle is a carbine not because of who it's made by. If you take your Bushy to Alaska, you *might* experience the failures that the military did. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:49:27 PM EDT
[#18]
Now we're comparing your buddy's Bushmaster at the range to an SF operator's M4 in combat? Good lord, I'm not even going to touch that one. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:52:43 PM EDT
[#19]
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S QUESTION:
This thread is not about whether or not Colt makes a crappy rifle. It is not about why they have feedramps. It is not about the height of the front sight base. It is about mil-spec M4 carbines. Who actually makes the M4 carbines for the military? COLT! So who is best to copy their own design for civilians? COLT! The only change that is made to the military version to make it civilian-legal is to make it semi-auto (although using large firecontrol pins) and extend the barrel length out to 16". A civilian can either SBR the rifle or add an extended flash suppressor to own the 14.5". The large firecontrols are a moot point. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:53:50 PM EDT
[#20]
I have been in northern maine in the winter and never had that happen.So because its a carbine what sense does that make.A carbine works harder cause its smaller so if any thing there should be more force in feeding and extracting and with an H buffer.Why has no other M16 ever had this problem and Im sure M16s and carbines over the years have been used in every climate.If the weapon has problems with heat and cold it sounds like poor materials and or workmanship.I have shot plent in below zero weather and never experienced that and dont give the militarys is full auto or what have you...kepp defending the indefesible.And I know what the original question was and made a reply,its just when Brad comes along it gets turned into a less worship colt thread and Im sick of it...and again Bradd whats your info source or are you just sitting there with a copy of the black rifle...whats your info source with the ramps,SFs misuse of full auto.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:55:32 PM EDT
[#21]
It's what we call an 'example'. I was comparing the addition of a picatinny optic-mounting system to the addition of M4 cuts to exemplify the fact that not all changes to a particular product are made on the basis of necessity. Either way it doesn't matter, since we have all identified the reason behind the addition of the cuts which, as stated several times, was the M4's questionable feeding reliability in much colder climates. But let's just assume that the changes were made TO PREVENT malfunctions in cold climates rather than to solve a horrible cold-weather malfunction problem. Again, he did say 'extreme cold'. Moving on... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:57:18 PM EDT
[#22]
And now you're comparing your Bushmaster plinking cans in the forests of Maine to a military torture test in Alaska? Tell ya what. M4Madness has a good point. Why don't you post your query in a seperate thread and see what happens? I also want it duly noted that I did not start this.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 7:00:59 PM EDT
[#23]
Yea colts made M4 carbine reliability in cold climates...just their rifle and thats my point..there could be alot more reasons for those deficiancies on their rifle.The canadiens live where its pretty cold and their C series of rifles and carbines seem fine and Im sure M4 type rifles are used in other cold climates...but it seems to just be colt.Any one any info saying other manufacturers rifles or carbines had these problems because colt seems to be the only ones.Back in 91 SFs and seals got the first made M4s and Im sure those were tested in cold climates and no problems reported back then only when colts M4 was in use did these problems seem to happen.You didnt say torture test BRADD you said shooting in the cold and yes northern maine up in the mountains gets way below zero.We repeatedly got the think scalding and threw it in snow....kept on ticking...like I said it seems to be just colts Carbine ...and can you give your source of your facts or are you just gonna continue to dance around it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 7:06:16 PM EDT
[#24]
You didnt start this? every thing with you is colt worship time at every chance you get,you just cant help yourself.So next time your up in the mountains in the winter at 40 below or more and take a carbine along let me know how your colt works because my Bushmaster works fine.I dont need to pose the question on a seperate thread.Your the one stating facts that you wont give an information source to and Im asking you the questions you dont seem to want to answer..Im done wasting bandwidth..a little advice start your own religion and you can be the evangelist and preacher for colt a company who hates the consumer,the 2nd ammendment, and kisses the anti gun crowds as as you support them and kiss their ass.You can have them..I wish I still had my original AR a 6601 HBAR because Id send that piece of crap to you for free.
 My rifle isnt a plinker its a shooter with reliability and right size parts...plinking cans..have you ever used an AR for anything serious or is it in your safe still in the packing oil...whats your real world experience...I assume you have some by the way you talk..tactical classes in different weather...anything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 7:14:05 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 7:14:54 PM EDT
[#26]
I can't believe you're still pursuing this...
Kind of hard for anyone else's rifles to be affected when no one else is making carbines for the military, huh? During extreme cold weather testing, Colt noticed the occurrence of feed issues with the carbines. The feedramps were simply added as a preventative measure not because there was some catastrophic failure. The Canadian rifles are made by Diemaco, a Colt licensed manufacturer. In fact, my LE6920 has a Diemaco upper reciever. Do the Canadian C8's have the feedramps?
Uh...Colt designed the M4. There was none other prior.
What kind of testing do you think the military does? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 7:16:45 PM EDT
[#27]
I simply answered the guy's question with the reasons I felt the Colts, and later, the LMT's were the closest to military issue. It started with these two quotes...
Now how constructive and relevant were those pieces of information? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 7:41:19 PM EDT
[#28]
Bushmaster made a production run and those were the first,where are you getting your info from..then colt sued Bushmaster it failed....Bushmaster made the first M4s we are talking not the M4A1.The original ones were safe,semi,burst not the current rifle wich is exclusively made by colt...so sorry the first M4s with 14.5 inch M203 compatible carbines were made by Bushmaster and thats a fact.Try raising your post count with legitimate information.And you accuse me of misinformation...oh colt didnt invent the M16 design it was Stoner at Armalite not to be confused with todays armalite.I guess FN a fantasy M16 contractor as well.And those were constructive comments as my interpretation would be the closest as I said parts sizes= the closest hell I even agreed on the colt stock...and Ill say it again Bushmaster made M4s for some special forces contracts see at that time colt didnt have exclusive rights as Bushmaster out bid them for the contract as they received a technical data package from the military to make it..oh and the original design and requirements for the M4 was from Marine Corps R&D wich when it ran out of funding the Army picked up on and finished as the marines already did the foot work and the contract was awarded to Bushmaster so get your facts straight.Colt lovers should just have their own AR site.They are always a big topic here for a company that has no industry support connections here...go promote their product with your praise somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 7:52:26 PM EDT
[#29]
Has anyone pointed out that LMT does not have the authentic M4 LOGO?
Jesus Christ you guys, Colt is the closest you can get. LMT is probably a better company, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. I don't like Colt, but they do make good rifles and those rifles are pretty damn close to the real thing. If you are truly going for authenticity there should be no dispute over which company to buy from; obviously you should buy the one by the company who produces the military rifle you are trying to duplicate! DUH!!! This has nothing to do with Colt as a company, it simply has to do with the most accurate clone of our military's current carbine. So let's recap: LMT and Colt both have a few deficiencies which puts them pretty even. However, Colt has the stupid pony, which puts them on top for authenticity. Colt may suck as a company, and LMT may rock as a company, but regardless there should be no dispute as to which is closer in appearance to the real M4. MOVING ON... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 8:54:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Brought to you by Bradd_D - self appointed god of all things constructive and relevant. Right of all wrongs.... defender of Colt in any dark alley where Colt might be bashed..... I admit mine was non-relevant and opportunistic.... but you just couldn't help yourself!  Using your very own logic at the top of this quote..... then I simply answered the guy's question with the reasons I felt the Bushmaster and LMT's were the closest to military issue...... because......................................... Colt sux.  |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 8:56:41 PM EDT
[#31]
Using your logic...... if Colt sold red apples to the military..... and we all wanted red apples (or as close to red apples as we can get).... but Colt only sold Oranges to civilians...... then you would STILL be saying, BUY ORANGES from Colt..... Even when Bushmaster and LMT have green apples for us all. Does that clear it up for everyone? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 9:00:19 PM EDT
[#32]
BUSHMASTER
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 9:17:03 PM EDT
[#33]
Thanks a bunch for all the answers--now would someone provide me with a case of aspirin for headache I fill coming on because of all these choices...
em |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 10:07:40 PM EDT
[#34]
Skip the headache and buy the Bushmaster carbine 14.5 flattop with phantom,M4 handguards and colt stock if you must although the slightly larger 99% of what every other maker uses is fine with me besides Id rather the tube a little thicker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2004 11:12:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Does anyone know how LMT gets away with using the M4 feedramps? I thought Colt had a patent on that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 2:07:23 AM EDT
[#36]
These are for model927:
{.......,,,,,,,} I can't believe you people. A guy came here asking a simple question and instead of letting the obviously simple answer stand (which is Colt, for better or worse), people had to jump in here and bring their uneeded biases. He didn't fucking ask if you thought LMT was better, FALARAK/Stickman! No one wanted to watch a remedial lesson lesson on feedramp design, model927 I'M TIRED OF NEW PEOPLE HAVING TO WADE THROUGH TONS OF THIS BULLSHIT IN ORDER TO GET AN HONEST ANSWER!! Is this what the whole site is coming to? Is AR15.com going to have to start limiting how many times you can post in a day to keep this kind of crap from happening every time a thread starts? I hope some of you people will start leaving your dicks in your pants for a change and remembering that this forum is about exchanging ideas and information and maybe, just maybe after you do that you may realize that people new to the site DON'T GIVE A GREAT GODDAMN about pin sizes, they want a rifle that shoots!! When has an oversized pin made a fucking bit of difference when you pulled the trigger for Chrissakes?? Jezzus, this piddlley shit of "Those rifles suck because they have a different colored XX" vs. "My rifle's better 'cause this is the same part they used in 'Nam" seeping into virtually every thread where someone has a question about buying a new rifle HAS TO GODDAMN STOP! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 4:56:14 AM EDT
[#37]
Sorry Roto - I totally disagree. Discussing the differing opinions about PIN SIZES DO matter to some. When I was a newbie.... I didnt understand all this, and I went out and bought a Colt. And original SP1. That bastard front pivot pin gave me all kinds of grief..... and I learned to hate it. I ended up putting that rifle in the safe.... and quit shooting it.. The conversion pins was a pain... as I wanted to play with different uppers on it since it was my only preban at the time. I was getting ready to buy an expensive DD A3 upper for the large hole, and looked into getting gunsmith work drilling and detent installation.... it bothered me so much. Now I know that modern Colt pivot pins are back to normal.... For instance, at the gun show this weekend, I was behind a guy who wanted to pick up a RRA 2stage trigger. He brought his lower in just to make sure it would work out... and the dealer (who had a ton of RRA triggers) took one look at his lower.... and told him "sorry... I dont stock the large pin models for that Colt... I can special order it for you tho." If Colt didnt have those uneccesary pin sizes... he could have gotten his trigger that day.... like everyone else could. Just because YOU dont "DON'T GIVE A GREAT GODDAMN about pin sizes" does NOT mean that everyone doesn't. Thank God you dont get to censor what is "ideas and information" and what isn't..... just because something is or is not important to YOU. Now, I will be the first to admit, when the Colt worshippers/Colt haters jump in, the thread gets personal pretty quickly, because both sides are often so biased..... so you can attack that there is too much personal crap going on here.... but Colt's bastardizing the *spec* of pin sizes, which directly relates to the original question... is very much on topic an applicable. At least, thats my opinion. I apologize in advance if this does not meet the standard for an "idea or information". 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 10:07:49 AM EDT
[#38]
That censor crap is typical. I hoped for better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 10:38:22 AM EDT
[#39]
L_Rot, if you prefer DPMS that's alright too !!! What was the question again ?? 5sub |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 1:40:36 PM EDT
[#40]
Falarak- All I was saying was that both companies had rifles that were VERY close to the real M4, and that both rifles specification wise are even. One has oversized pins, the other has a wrong size FSB or whatever. So if they are both dead even, and Colt has the correct M4 logo while LMT does not, doesn't that put Colt a step ahead of LMT for authenticity?
Colt sucks, but they DO have the closest rifle. Personally I don't really care since 14.5" barrels are inferior to 16" IMO, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 1:42:13 PM EDT
[#41]
Hey, I've got an idea!
Buy a new Colt 6921 and SBR it, send the lower to Mike Klos to have the large firecontrol pin holes converted to small, and you have an exact semi-auto version of the military's M4 carbine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 2:19:06 PM EDT
[#42]
I'd have to agree with you. It's just my blinding hatred of Colt that keeps me from seeing this. 
Ok, I will concede. Out of the box/factory rifle.... you are prolly right.... I still think the way to build the closest match is to assemble yourself from parts, using a Bushmaster lower receiver and Colt parts. So I guess the right to the question: "M-4: who makes the most correct mil-spec M-4 for sell to civilians?" ---------- YOU DO! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 2:19:53 PM EDT
[#43]
I'd buy that for a dollar! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 3:50:56 PM EDT
[#44]
Why does everyone hate colt so bad from what i read on the posts?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 3:57:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Please don't ask that. We've finally gotten everyone to act somewhat civil again. FALARAK...don't I get credit for admitting that LMT would actually be the closest if they do indeed build a complete factory rifle? And does anyone know if LMT does build a complete rifle? Serious question here, folks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 4:06:04 PM EDT
[#46]
How many LMT's are in Military hands? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 4:10:01 PM EDT
[#47]
Well emm, as you've seen there's no easy answer for it. I'll try to answer the Q though as I understand it: 1. the weapon that is made by the current military M-4 provider with modifications for the civilian market: the Colt LE6920. Available all over the equipment exchange board. As far as I'm concerned, this is the best answer to your question by far and this is what I would get if I were in your position. Be aware though that it has the following modifications: -lower receiver, bolt carrier, trigger group changed in minor ways to full auto parts won't work in it. - further minor (in my opinion) modifications to the lower receiver to prevent full auto parts. 2. the most correct in looks that won't break the budget, with internals of unknown adherence to mil-spec level of QC and without a number of copyrighted "mil-spec" features: probably this Bushmaster. Click on this link which explains some of the argument you've seen on this thread (but only if you want to turn your headache into a migraine!). I hope this has been a little bit helpful. Feel free to email if you have further questions on my decidedly non-expert opinion. (other than that, I'm not getting into this flamewar). Best, G1, soon to be LMT owner [now, why did I go LMT? LMT supposedly makes uppers for US SOCOM, and it probably meets/exceeds so-called "milspecs". I also only want an upper, and Colt uppers are not available for any reasonable price. I also wanted to use my Knight's trigger, which won't work on the Colt due to one of the further "minor" mods. Welcome to the confusing world of AR-15s] |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 4:22:04 PM EDT
[#48]
Wasnt FN making rifles for the Army? I think it might have been the M16s, and Colt was still making the M4s. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 4:43:36 PM EDT
[#49]
Correct. FN currently builds M16's and Colt builds M4's. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2004 6:30:06 PM EDT
[#50]
This, IMHO, ought to be tacked. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
