Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/10/2005 11:07:00 AM EDT
Talked to my FFL about some stuff today, mentioned I've been looking at a Colt 6920. He said that Colt Defense has dropped any cosmetic inspection of the finished rifles, as they are being produced for cops and military personal and don't "need to look pretty". According to him most new Colts have tools marks galore and uneven finishes. This sounds like total bull to me, but I don't know why he would lie since he deals with Colt, Bushmaster, RRA and the like and is only convincing me not to buy the most expeensive weapon. Anyway give me your thoughts gentlemen
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 11:10:58 AM EDT
Colt is still running the same QC as they always have been.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 12:19:46 PM EDT
Mine has what appear to be two tooling marks on it. Then again, my dealer could have smacked it around for all I know. Every other 6920 I've seen has been pristine.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 12:27:08 PM EDT
Oh no not the evil Colt again. I have a new Colt and my son has a new RRA, the Colt is a bit better made but they both rock.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 1:02:35 PM EDT
hey guys, I'm not accusing Colt of anything, just relaying what my dealer said. I just want to know if there is any truth to this before I drop $1100 dollars on one.......function is more important than fit and finish but for that kind of money I expect it to look good as well.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 1:07:50 PM EDT
I agree with what your dealer said. I'll say right up front that I tend to prefer Colt's----and have a number of them. That said, the finish on the ones coming out over the last 6-12 months is nowhere close to where they were just a few years back----they're rougher, carry blemishes, tool marks, etc.----and certainly give the impression that just not "put together" or "built" with the same care that they once were.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 1:22:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mco119:
".....just relaying what my dealer said. .......".




Chalk it up to gunshop drivel

I'd bet a NIB 6920, almost anything ( )that Colt has not made a corporate decision to skip QC on 'cosmetics'

I do not doubt he said it, but seriously, that is a reach.

Link Posted: 12/10/2005 1:28:16 PM EDT
seemed like a stretch to me too. But I've heard people say similar things on this site before (like ChairBorneRanger 2 posts ago). Not wanting to start a flame war......but glad to be getting opinions
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 1:39:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By redfisher:

Originally Posted By mco119:
".....just relaying what my dealer said. .......".




Chalk it up to gunshop drivel

I'd bet a NIB 6920, almost anything ( )that Colt has not made a corporate decision to skip QC on 'cosmetics'

I do not doubt he said it, but seriously, that is a reach.




+1
Never listen to anyone who owns a gunshop unless you know they are not a complete dumbass.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 2:03:38 PM EDT
I have to say there are what seem to be a few *Dremel* type marks on my 6920. They were obviously not polished out. I got my gun from Clyde Armory new more than 6 months ago. I will post pics when I get the chance.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 2:05:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 2:26:12 PM EDT
I would have to agree with your gunshop the 3 6920's that I have dealt with up close have no where near as good of a finish as my older Colt AR's do.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 2:29:27 PM EDT
I think these are entirely cosmetic, have nothing to do with function, but seems to be a cost cutting measure...
Look below the safety lever: there are also areas you can't see due to focus above the lever, and you can see a bit of roughness along the upper receiver...

Check out these lines of Dremeling above the ejection port...

This is the front of the magwell, and it is rough along the edge and just above it in the curved area..


Link Posted: 12/10/2005 2:35:00 PM EDT
I don't know if Colt has technically done away with cosmetic QC, but my 6920 has 2 visible tooling marks, and the upper/lower finish match is not a match at all. That being said, I am definitely a kool-aid drinker and it isn't terribly important to me that my 6920 needs to be museum-quality. It is a shooter. As a matter of fact, I don't own anything that can be referred to as a "safe queen". These are firearms we are talking about, not an artifact from an extinct civilization.

However, if you would likes some pics for comparison, I can provide them.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 2:46:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lyrch:
I would have to agree with your gunshop the 3 6920's that I have dealt with up close have no where near as good of a finish as my older Colt AR's do.



I will have to agree with this. My older AR is much nicer finished, but they all run the same, excellently. I too have noticed marks under the anodizing on several of mine but they all work and that is the price I pay to have a chrome bore and chamber on a new Colt AFAIC. My anodizing is fine but I did see one where it had chipped off. It was on the ejection port and looked as if the flashing was left on until after anodizing and then broken off. That sat in the shop for months and the owners were always decent and did tell those who looked at it about it.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 2:58:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By redfisher:

Originally Posted By mco119:
".....just relaying what my dealer said. .......".




Chalk it up to gunshop drivel

I'd bet a NIB 6920, almost anything (hat
I do not doubt he said it, but seriously, that is a reach.




+1
Never listen to anyone who owns a gunshop unless you know they are not a complete dumbass.



Well that's the thing, I know my FFL is not a dumbass. Smart guy, knows what he's about.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 3:03:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ExParatrooper:
I don't know if Colt has technically done away with cosmetic QC, but my 6920 has 2 visible tooling marks, and the upper/lower finish match is not a match at all. That being said, I am definitely a kool-aid drinker and it isn't terribly important to me that my 6920 needs to be museum-quality. It is a shooter. As a matter of fact, I don't own anything that can be referred to as a "safe queen". These are firearms we are talking about, not an artifact from an extinct civilization.

However, if you would likes some pics for comparison, I can provide them.


wouldn't mind taking a look. I'm a college student and it's been 3 years since I bought my last rifle....that's a lot of saving. Fit and Finish isn't paramount, but it is something to me; saved too long to have complaints. Even if I am being anal......
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 3:06:29 PM EDT
I've got a Colt with a few minor tool marks but I've got a couple other brands that are far worse, a Lauer I have needed the top filed down because the manufacturer stamping was a bit deep and deformed the flat where the upper meets, preventing the pin from entering properly

and everyone should know well enough not to believe any dealer that you dont know well, they are all in it to make money, they'll tell you what you want to hear.

On a side note, If, as everyone states, that Colt wont sell to civilians, why would they need to cut QC in order to pump them out faster. The Police are still buying them at the same rate, the ban did nothing for them.

I have a 04/05 M4 upper that is as beautiful as anything I've ever seen.

I'll take my chances with Colt anyday
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 3:27:05 PM EDT
after a good friend purchased a colt i new i had to have a AR. i went with the bushmaster. the colt does have a few tool marks similar to the pics above and the bushy is nearly cosmetically perfect, both of us are still waiting for the first misfire or jam before we talk any trash about either...
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 3:33:57 PM EDT
A few tooling marks once in a while from any manufacturer is not QC going to crap.

SF

Link Posted: 12/10/2005 4:06:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2005 4:07:47 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By a38337:
A few tooling marks once in a while from any manufacturer is not QC going to crap.

SF





Agreed - as long as function is great, that's all that matters. However, in a competitive market, with many players selling a similar product, finish seems to matter to many customers. I mean, there are people who are willing to pay something like $1600 for a Wilson rifle, which main distinction seems to be that it has a really nice finish.

For example, when I bought my Eagle Arms/Armalite rifle a few years ago, I got a huge discount because there were two TINY "cosmetic" tooling marks on it. I didn't even ask for the discount, it was heavily discounted by the company, because they didn't want to sell what they considered a "cosmetic second" for full price. Functioning has been perfect, and other than two 1/4-inch blemishes on the upper, there isn't a thing wrong with it.

I believe I paid $525 for a NIB factory rifle, with a blemish that most people couldn't even find unless I pointed it out to them.

If Colt's finish really has gotten worse, I really don't understand why people are paying such a markup, given all the competitors in the market.



On the other hand - these may just be a few isolated examples. For each person that has gotten an ugly Colt, there may be 20 who got a perfect-looking one with pristine finish, and just isn't posting in this thread.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 4:26:25 PM EDT
ive always thought that colts qc is shit, ive seen several new colts that look like shit. several of them the ears on the front sight are of dif thickness and alot of machine marks though out the gun.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:28:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:41:08 PM EDT
I have seen many variations in the fit and finish of Colt rifles over the past year. I bought my 6920 last December with a "birth bag" dated June 04. I cut the factory packing tape myself. Very loose upper to lower reciever fit, plenty of tool/grind marks and a brass defelector that looked like it had been rough sanded with a dremmel tool. I was pissed at first, considering it was the most expensive rifle I had bought at the time. Now that I've used it for a year it is my favorite rifle. Just for kicks I look at 6920's and 6721's whenever I see them and don't be fooled, there are plenty of "cosmetically challenged" rifles leaving the Colt factory. Mine is a perfect example. The good thing is my rifle is 100% reliable, even with Wolf ammo.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:44:18 PM EDT
my 6450 had lots of tooling marks and chipped anodizing on the edges in multiple places.


kinda disappointing when first got it cause it was my first colt rifle and with all the kool-aid followers here and their remarks i had high expectations. oh well, it functions perfect so no real complaint here and after pulling the trigger for the first time i had the kool-aid smile from left to right
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:51:45 PM EDT
Mine looks perfect.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:55:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2005 7:11:08 PM EDT by KingC]
I've noticed rough handling on the delta ring with bare metal exposed and dings. Have one on Sporter from '94.

Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:58:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Mine looks perfect.



Wow thats impressive ! I would have dare said that there is no such thing as a 100% perfect looking AR . They are not machined on every surface !
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 6:00:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wreckdiver:
I have seen many variations in the fit and finish of Colt rifles over the past year. I bought my 6920 last December with a "birth bag" dated June 04. I cut the factory packing tape myself. Very loose upper to lower reciever fit, plenty of tool/grind marks and a brass defelector that looked like it had been rough sanded with a dremmel tool. I was pissed at first, considering it was the most expensive rifle I had bought at the time. Now that I've used it for a year it is my favorite rifle. Just for kicks I look at 6920's and 6721's whenever I see them and don't be fooled, there are plenty of "cosmetically challenged" rifles leaving the Colt factory. Mine is a perfect example. The good thing is my rifle is 100% reliable, even with Wolf ammo.


I think you hit the nail on the head: I believe Colt still makes a great functioning gun, but if you look at who these are marketed towards, the cosmetics is clearly second to other factors which are more important. So long as this isn't the tip of the iceberg! These marks could also be the result of a particular employee on a particular shift, who just doesn't give a damn about how something looks.... or they stopped doing a particular finishing step, polishing or bead blasting, which took up some time. I gotta say my 653 is much nicer, though. It was born in 1979. My baby!
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 6:35:15 PM EDT
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=258376

Click the link.

I have notice cosmetics has gone downhill in the last year. I had an upper that looked like the anodizing "shattered" around the charging handle recess. Lots of purple uppers also.

I have a M4 bbl that has dings in it from the factory.

Link Posted: 12/10/2005 6:46:53 PM EDT
this is helpful stuff guys. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with everyone who has said that function is the top priority.....it is. And I think everyone, Kool Aid drinker or not, has to agree that Colt rifles function well. But if I'm going to pay $1100, minimum, for a Colt 6920 ,after saving little pieces of every paycheck for a year, I want the thing to at least look DECENT. Maybe these cosmetic defects are just "lemons", every company has those leave the factory. But I would be pissed if I dropped all that cash and got one that looked awful
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 6:55:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mco119:

Originally Posted By ExParatrooper:
I don't know if Colt has technically done away with cosmetic QC, but my 6920 has 2 visible tooling marks, and the upper/lower finish match is not a match at all. That being said, I am definitely a kool-aid drinker and it isn't terribly important to me that my 6920 needs to be museum-quality. It is a shooter. As a matter of fact, I don't own anything that can be referred to as a "safe queen". These are firearms we are talking about, not an artifact from an extinct civilization.

However, if you would likes some pics for comparison, I can provide them.


wouldn't mind taking a look. I'm a college student and it's been 3 years since I bought my last rifle....that's a lot of saving. Fit and Finish isn't paramount, but it is something to me; saved too long to have complaints. Even if I am being anal......



It's not that I think anyone is "anal" when it comes to finish matches. It is more important to some than others, and you should have the right to be picky if you so desire when spending the kind of money a Colt carbine normally commands. When I bought mine from Clyde Armory in Athens, GA, I was asked if I wanted to inspect it before I bought it. Of course they come shiiped in plastic bags completely floating in CLP, so I didn't really catch the color mismatch. If given the option of having two side by side - one matching better than the other, I would obviously take the one that matched, but I am still happy with it.

Anyhow, my camera is old, so I took the best shots I could:

Obvious upper/lower color mismatch. The M203 notch in the M4 profile had a very visible gouge in the finish that allowed bare metal to show through - about 3/4" long. I don't have a picture of it now, because ADCO fixed that as well when I sent the upper in for some custom work.

The obvious finish blemishes are on the left side mag release bevel (it was dinged/gouged when I first pulled it out of the plastic bag they ship in). Another notable area is the bolt catch roll pin recess. This actually doesn't bother me at all because the roll pin is driven in with a punch, and marring can occur; however, I have seens tons of other various AR's without this blemish.












Link Posted: 12/10/2005 7:07:51 PM EDT
Let me say up front that I like Colts. However, I bought a Rock River Arms Tac Entry over a 6920. Why? RRA obviously takes cosmetic appearance seriously. My rifle is (near) flawless cosmetically. Some of you may not care what your rifles fit and finish look like as long as it's 100% reliable. Well, my RRA is 100% reliable AND looks great also. Not to mention a whole bunch less money. For me reliability is the #1 consideration that I considered, which is why I almost bought a Colt. However, there is a "pride of ownership" componant that I consider when I buy a gun also. Had I spent the big money on a Colt and it showed up looking like some of thoes earlier posts, I would have been very unhappy. Maybe this is not a proper analogy, but if I buy a TV set and I open the box and the cabinet is all dinged up, I'm not happy. I don't care if the picture is great, I'm taking it back. How many of you would accept a new car that had flaws in the paint? After all you buy a car for reliable transportation right? I dare say to most of us cosmetics IS an issue with most things we buy. why does it have to be diffrent when you buy a rifle?
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 7:13:00 PM EDT




I just not even going to say anything.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 7:17:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By regalgseguy:
Let me say up front that I like Colts. However, I bought a Rock River Arms Tac Entry over a 6920. Why? RRA obviously takes cosmetic appearance seriously. My rifle is (near) flawless cosmetically. Some of you may not care what your rifles fit and finish look like as long as it's 100% reliable. Well, my RRA is 100% reliable AND looks great also. Not to mention a whole bunch less money. For me reliability is the #1 consideration that I considered, which is why I almost bought a Colt. However, there is a "pride of ownership" componant that I consider when I buy a gun also. Had I spent the big money on a Colt and it showed up looking like some of thoes earlier posts, I would have been very unhappy. Maybe this is not a proper analogy, but if I buy a TV set and I open the box and the cabinet is all dinged up, I'm not happy. I don't care if the picture is great, I'm taking it back. How many of you would accept a new car that had flaws in the paint? After all you buy a car for reliable transportation right? I dare say to most of us cosmetics IS an issue with most things we buy. why does it have to be diffrent when you buy a rifle?



Cosmetics is always an issue until you put the dings in. You don't expect the "extras" on a "new item. You don't pay for those features. They are added later on with use. Then, and only then, they are "easier to live with", and accept. A big difference.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 7:27:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2005 7:29:46 PM EDT by scottryan]

Originally Posted By ExParatrooper:



The M203 notch in the M4 profile had a very visible gouge in the finish that allowed bare metal to show through - about 3/4" long.





I have also noticed that on some M4 bbls that are either on factory uppers or factory complete guns. I have never seen it on a new in bag barrel.

Maybe they test fit a M203 mount at the factory?

Link Posted: 12/10/2005 7:28:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:




I just not even going to say anything.



That's a relief.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 7:29:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By new-arguy:

Originally Posted By AROKIE:
ive always thought that colts qc is shit, ive seen several new colts that look like shit. several of them the ears on the front sight are of dif thickness and alot of machine marks though out the gun.



Puh-leez, you know, if you have a complaint, its cool to share it with everyone. But saying their QC is shit just makes you seem jaded or someone with an axe to grind. Shit compared to what? RRA, Bushmaster, LMT, KAC, Armalite, all of whom can be blamed for poor workmanship here and there. Be real or sound fake.



hmm so i guess having an opinion isnt allowed here huh?? so im fake for having an opinion? I dont have no ax to grind just an opinion.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 7:33:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:




I just not even going to say anything.



Well I am now extremely disapointed



Link Posted: 12/10/2005 8:15:15 PM EDT
My 5 mo old 6520 has what looks like black paint blotches on the barrel near the front sight. I am more bothered by the M4 cuts in the upper receiver that were dremmeled in and left in the white.
I bought it for reliability and accuracy and it delivers in spades.
Its a shooter, I will be adding my own "cosmetics" soon enough. Not interested in any other brand.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 8:34:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2005 8:35:50 PM EDT by ExParatrooper]

Originally Posted By scottryan:

Originally Posted By ExParatrooper:



The M203 notch in the M4 profile had a very visible gouge in the finish that allowed bare metal to show through - about 3/4" long.





I have also noticed that on some M4 bbls that are either on factory uppers or factory complete guns. I have never seen it on a new in bag barrel.

Maybe they test fit a M203 mount at the factory?




Yeah that was kinda my thought as well. The only other thing i could think of is maybe they use some sort of device to clamp barrels in while attaching things like FSB's. It's all speculation, as I haven't seen these things in production.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 8:36:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ExParatrooper:

Originally Posted By mco119:

Originally Posted By ExParatrooper:
I don't know if Colt has technically done away with cosmetic QC, but my 6920 has 2 visible tooling marks, and the upper/lower finish match is not a match at all. That being said, I am definitely a kool-aid drinker and it isn't terribly important to me that my 6920 needs to be museum-quality. It is a shooter. As a matter of fact, I don't own anything that can be referred to as a "safe queen". These are firearms we are talking about, not an artifact from an extinct civilization.

However, if you would likes some pics for comparison, I can provide them.


wouldn't mind taking a look. I'm a college student and it's been 3 years since I bought my last rifle....that's a lot of saving. Fit and Finish isn't paramount, but it is something to me; saved too long to have complaints. Even if I am being anal......hr


It's not that I think anyone is "anal" when it comes to finish matches. It is more important to some than others, and you should have the right to be picky if you so desire when spending the kind of money a Colt carbine normally commands. When I bought mine from Clyde Armory in Athens, GA, I was asked if I wanted to inspect it before I bought it. Of course they come shiiped in plastic bags completely floating in CLP, so I didn't really catch the color mismatch. If given the option of having two side by side - one matching better than the other, I would obviously take the one that matched, but I am still happy with it.

Anyhow, my camera is old, so I took the best shots I could:

Obvious upper/lower color mismatch. The M203 notch in the M4 profile had a very visible gouge in the finish that allowed bare metal to show through - about 3/4" long. I don't have a picture of it now, because ADCO fixed that as well when I sent the upper in for some custom work.

The obvious finish blemishes are on the left side mag release bevel (it was dinged/gouged when I first pulled it out of the plastic bag they ship in). Another notable area is the bolt catch roll pin recess. This actually doesn't bother me at all because the roll pin is driven in with a punch, and marring can occur; however, I have seens tons of other various AR's without this blemish.

home.alltel.net/~cwilliams/6920_1.jpg


home.alltel.net/~cwilliams/6920_2.jpg


home.alltel.net/~cwilliams/6920_3.jpg


home.alltel.net/~cwilliams/6920_4.jpg



man you aren't kidding about the upper and lowers being mismatched......geezhock.gif
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 8:37:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wired:
My 5 mo old 6520 has what looks like black paint blotches on the barrel near the front sight. I am more bothered by the M4 cuts in the upper receiver that were dremmeled in and left in the white.
I bought it for reliability and accuracy and it delivers in spades.
Its a shooter, I will be adding my own "cosmetics" soon enough. Not interested in any other brand.



send it back to Colt and they will fix it for free. that is what they are doing for me right now. the M4 feed ramps should be anodized and when i called Colt about this they said that it was not right that they were not and to send it in for service.

in my experiance Colts have never been the best when it comes to the finish but if it bothers you they will refinish the gun for free. they have done this for me on three rifles. i bought mine on line and was not able to see the finish but even with the cost to ship it back to Colt to be refinished i saved about $150-$200 over buying one at a local shop.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 8:58:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By regalgseguy:
Let me say up front that I like Colts. However, I bought a Rock River Arms Tac Entry over a 6920. Why? RRA obviously takes cosmetic appearance seriously. My rifle is (near) flawless cosmetically. Some of you may not care what your rifles fit and finish look like as long as it's 100% reliable. Well, my RRA is 100% reliable AND looks great also. Not to mention a whole bunch less money. For me reliability is the #1 consideration that I considered, which is why I almost bought a Colt. However, there is a "pride of ownership" componant that I consider when I buy a gun also. Had I spent the big money on a Colt and it showed up looking like some of thoes earlier posts, I would have been very unhappy. Maybe this is not a proper analogy, but if I buy a TV set and I open the box and the cabinet is all dinged up, I'm not happy. I don't care if the picture is great, I'm taking it back. How many of you would accept a new car that had flaws in the paint? After all you buy a car for reliable transportation right? I dare say to most of us cosmetics IS an issue with most things we buy. why does it have to be diffrent when you buy a rifle?



I've been considering RRA too. Really like the 6920/6921 rifles....but fit and finish is important to me. And this thread confirms, at least somewhat, what I've heard from lots of different people lately. Again, no doubt Colt is a top tier manufacturer, little doubt there. But pride of ownership is important. I saved up one year for a DSA SA-58 FAL carbine, took awhile to get it but it happened. That rifle functions flawlessly and looks AWESOME on top of that. I really want to feel that way about my first AR15, not happy with the function and pissed when I look at it. Many people may disagree with me about this, since a rifle is a tool and not something to stare at. But I feel the same way you do regalgseguy....
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 2:55:31 AM EDT
You can buy the RRA and be very happy with it, Great rifles


but

You'­ll still want the Colt, I'd look for a nice looking Colt to begin with, might be a little trouble but worth it in the end
ymmv
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 4:37:50 AM EDT
I just picked up a new LEO lower to go with my M16A4 colt upper. The upper is more grat and the lower is black. Other than that there are no issues at all. In fact that is not an issue for me as it will not be a safe queen or an investment. It is a great lower with no tool marks and a better than average trigger. Colt rocks.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 5:48:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2005 5:51:18 AM EDT by ar_mcadams]


EXPARATROOPER

very nice looking carbine

I have a 6920 that is a little dinged up from the factory, but I dont really care.

Link Posted: 12/11/2005 6:22:56 AM EDT
Mine had a bit of finish taken off at the bolt stop roll pin hole....which I found a bit odd compared to my older Ponies but it shucks shells just like the others.....

I saw a few LE Carbines at Legendary Guns in PHX last week that appeared very nice.....too bad Legendary is charging a crazy premium for them......

and don't even ask me about their 1911 prices......

Still, nice staff, great looking store.......


anyway.....I think a lot of Colt's finish issues are due to two or three reasons. One...Colt sells every AR they make and they sell them fast. It may be difficult to get ahold of a Colt....but it isn't stopping anyone and Colt damn well knows it. Liability wise...they have their ass covered. Anyhow, I am taking the guess that they have loosened up the cosmetic specs a bit in order to fill orders......LOTS AND LOTS OF ORDERS.

The other two reasons would be if you bought your gun off of the rack....then it's been finger fucked to death and rack guns tend to take a beating.....Colt's get a lot of finger fucking, though it takes a while before someone comes in with the cash and desire to buy one. I would say that one the average it's usually Cult members like me who have sold their soul to buy yet ANOTHER damn AR-15 or 1911.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 6:58:23 AM EDT
Ya know guys .........more emphasis needs to be placed on overall function and personal skills than this drivel..........
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 7:35:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2005 7:40:50 AM EDT by mongo001]
Demand is high....................................extremely high. Product MUST go out the door. Anybody who thinks a company won't turn a blind eye to minor cosmetic issues while operating in a market environment like that is fooling only themselves. The vast majority of the product going out Colt's door is high quality stuff, but I'd bet that the number of minor, cosmetic issues is on the rise. We are seeing it here more often than ever. This isn't the first "My Colt rifle is less than perfect" thread. I'm too lazy to find the others. Many are already here in this thread.

Reality is a hard pill for cult members to swallow because reality is.................well...................reality. And cult members, just by the nature of their thinking, are..............well...............less than real thinkers.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 7:57:13 AM EDT
The only Colt I still own, and Ihave owned about 4 others, all pre-bans, is a pre-ban 6520, early 4 digit serial number. Cosmeticaly it is as good as my Bushy's, thought the upper/lower fit is a bit loose, but not as loose as the AR1- Sporter HBAR was.

The deal is if you are like me and a few others here and care about what a $1200 purchase looks like, take the gun out and look at it before you buy it.

I am a 51 yo dad, I own a small business in what used to be New Orleans (Hurrican Katrina), I am not a comando. I shoot IPSC with a Bushy and CMP with a CLE-Bushy Service Rifle and none of then have anodization chipping off. As a matter of FACT, I shot an AR15A2 6600 for years and about 6 thousand rounds until I sold it to a friend who just had to have it in the ban, it looked nearly 98%. Near zero wear as I don't recall any. No tool makes at all, very very nice, but the upper/lower wiggle drove me to the "accu-wedge". So why are we making excuses for $1200 rifles comming out looking worse than one I sold with 6K rounds and 5 or 6 years of shooting on it? Who knows, my advise is simple, buy what you want and shoot what you have and let the other guy do the same.

Bill
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top