AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ugly Colts (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/22/2006 11:58:29 AM EDT
|
Have read quite a few post expressing “shock” regarding cosmetic issues with Colt rifles. Seen quite a few dedicated threads dealing with guys that don’t have rifles that are as pretty as they had dreamed. We even had a whole thread dealing with blemished Colt rifles. Some of these threads deal with other brands, but I don’t know much about them so will address Colt’s here. Examples: archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=255381 archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260375 www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=270259 Here are some pictures of cosmetic “blems” and my take on what is normal, common, and unusual.  There is a big honking ding on this upper forging under the finish where it flares to meet the lower. Normal, can been found on a Colt of any era.  This carrier exhibits a very crude surface on the left side front. This is common, see this mostly on early 60’s and late 90’s to current production Colt rifles.  Semi gloss almost rust blue appearing Parkerizing. Appears on carriers and barrels. Common and I see it on quite a few carriers made in the 65-94 times frame, also seen here and there from barrels of the same era. This is probably caused from skipping or going light on surface prep prior to Parkerizing, and perhaps waiting to long to get to post Parkerizing treatment.  Porous FSB forging. Found from 1971 to current production. Certain batches of FSB’s made during this time frame are worse then others, and for these batches it is normal.   Thick nasty rough Parkerizing. Unusual, this is the only example I have seen and it came off a circa 1998 M16A4. Looks like it was in the Parkerizing tank to long, or it was a new batch of solution.  Anodizing not taking on angled surfaces. This is normal on such parts as the tapered delta ring, trigger guard, carry handle, and the edges of the rail on flat tops.  Scratches under the finish. This is hard to photograph, but if you look at the receiver under the mag catch you can see a scratch going up and down. This is normal and can be found on any part. This is not as common on rifles made prior to 1964. Prior to this the AR-15 was in low volume production (less then 1,000 a month) and parts such as uppers and lowers were carefully prepped prior to anodizing. This is caused by parts being dinged up after pre finish blasting prep or by parts not being blasted prior to finish.  Big honking post finish handling dings. This is a new out of the box rifle still in the factory grease. The mag fence is scuffed up, and there is a scratch just in front of the mag release button. This is common, some have more scuffs then others, and some spend more time looking for scuffs then others. It does seem that war time production rifles (say 66-71 and 2002 on) have more of these blems then other years.  Attack of the angry beavers on receiver forgings prior to finishing. This MT6400C lower has a gouge about and inch below that circle around the mag catch recess.  This SP1 lower appears to have been mangled with a dremel. Notice the sweeping arch going from left to right. This is common, can be found through out production.  Visible forging seam on unmachined surfaces on the upper and lower. Think this is referred to as slag? Normal, and Colt’s quit machining these surfaces in 1964.  Pitting on the receiver under the finish. This is unusual. Also notice the scratches on the port door. Those scratches are under the finish, and is normal as described above.  Parkerizing not taking in spots. Did not take this picture for this purpose, so not the best angle. There is a bare spot on the back of the FSB on the “slag” about ¾ down. That is common any year, and is probably due to contamination prior to Parkerizing. So, this is how I see it; The stuff described as being normal, is normal, as in normal. Blems described as being common may or may not be expected to be discussed prior to someone buying the item. Guess it depends on the severity, and the number involved. I try to describe such common blems prior to sale, and have never complained about getting a part or rifle with such common blems. Being a collector of Colt stuff I would expect to be told about any of the items I described as being unusual prior to buying. These are things that I can see being bitched about. But I sure don’t consider them being grave enough to entertain the thought that they deserve warranty work. |
|
I have saved a few pictures that people have posted of their Colts, that have mixmatched colors, pits, or gouges in the receivers. It happens, they are weapons, and I've never read anything from Colt, or any other company that talks about having a flawless finish. Its not part of the sales push..... |
Did not cover color match for upper and lowers. I only have one Colt with the original upper, and it happens to match the lower. That reminds me though, there was a guy asking if the color of his flash suppresor and barrel should match.
That is one way to put it, was quite a bit less work then the first post, and to the point. |
| Those pictures are mild compared to some of the recent stuff I have seen. Fortunately I had the luxury of being able to pick through quite a few rifles to pick out my 6721 and 6520 which I purchased recently. Let me tell you though, what I saw wasn't pretty. I'm not talking about minor blemishes, I'm talking seriously flawed. Most of these were obtained directly from Colt mid to late 04. |
I am not suprised that colt is sending rifles with scratches on the exterior finish out. After all, there is a war going on, and they are the only supplier of M4 carbines. Don't judge a book by it's cover. It's what's on the inside that counts. If you want a wall hanger, get a cheap brand (X)...
|
|
One little discussed item is the light strike put on many roll-marks, while others are deep, pronounced and bold This is in spite of there being a BATF stipulation for 'engraving depth' being "at least .003 in" I know .003 isn't much, but these engravings/roll-marks are mandated, while other 'flaws' fall into a category of pride in one's work, quality controls, and an institutional decision to build quality products. From Team Members _DR's- "Lower Receiver & Mag Floorplate Rollmarks, Logos and Markings" thread (we've all seen lighter strikes, and deeper, but this gives you a visual reference)  Nice bold roll-marks..........  and light ones.........  |
I view that as roll mark changes, rather then roll marks being applied differently between individuals rifles from the same batch. There are Colt's with improper roll marks. Like that guy that has a 6520 with a GS serial number prefix. And the GOVT CARBINE marked COVT CARBINE. Also that SP1 missing the manufacturers roll mark. |
Seems like someone took a grinder to the side of the upper. |
This one has similar marks, but they go the other direction, and are on the other side of the receiver, on the forward assist "hump": 
|
These blems don't photograph well, plus I took most of those pictures for other purposes, and then cropped them down, and the macro function on my old 2 MP camera is pretty lame. |
The grinding marks on my upper go all the way down on the left side. They are also on the foward assit hump. |
Yes, they are hard to photograph. Even harder than that pitting in the shorty barrel. I had to try about 10 different times to get them to show up. |
| WOW. You guys should see what my rifle looks like after being thrown around my patrol car in just the last 8 months I have owned it. Scratches and dings everywhere. I didn't buy my rifle for it to look pretty. I bought Colt because I have carried and trusted my life with one in the sandbox. I have seen more POS Bushmasters broken on a police range than I care to think about. It ain't about blemishs. Get over it, it is a COMBAT WEAPON!!!!!!! A pretty gun that doesn't work properly won't save your life. |
Exactly the point of the thread, it ain't cosmetics that makes a Colt. |
|
Does the rifle shoot? Yes? So STFU or send it back and be sure to request the blemish free version. I've got 5 AR's and none were blemish free. There was always some nick or ding. WTF, do people think rifles are made by people with hands wrapped in diapers. Has anyone ever seen a machine and gun smith tool shop before. It aint no micro cheap clean room with padded walls and floors |
|
What the heck is up with all of the Bushmaster bashing? I have a lot of Colt stuff, heck, almost all of my uppers are Colt. But I have never had a Bushmaster fail and I have never seen a Bushmaster fail. ALL companies make an occasional turd, even Colt. Ask me about my pretty but way out of spec Rock River turd. Anyway, back on topic, as I stated, I have a lot of Colt stuff. And generally speaking it is the best from a functional standpoint. And in my experience they are the prettiest. But when they turn out out an ugly duckling it is really ugly. Still works though. |
most don't bash, but mention another brand to make a comparative point. For example, like calling a RRA a turd.  It is no different than Ford vs Chevy Junior. vs Gordon New vs used Aimpoint vs EOTech Totally rhetorical. No right or wrong answer But even so, Bushmasters are out of spec clones of the real deal Colts!  |
I had a 6920 with a forward assist that looked like that. Didn't think anything of it since at the time, I didn't own any other ARs to compare it to. |
My Bushamster bashing is from my ownership expereince. Which was shitty...so shitty that Bushmaster would not fix it and since I have busted it down for parts and tossing the outa spec junk. Never had to do any of that with a Colt. |
Out of curiosity, what's you take on this one (NIB LE6721 lower)... First, there are the "beaver marks" or what ever you called it but in this case, the beavers must have been very hungry that day. Notice it extends up to the top edge which is rounded over. The other item is the anodizing (or lack there of) around the mag release fence. |
"What is up"? All manufacturers get bashed, heck there was a post in this thread refering to a RRA "turd". Think you might even know the guy that posted it? |
"Attack of the angry beavers" is common, and so is the finish not taking in spots. Your thread and others about cosmetic issues is what inspired this one. Now this is a cosmetic issue worthy of a return on warranty: Before:  After:    Link: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=29&t=149925 |
To the best of my knowledge, I've never started a thread about cosmetic issues from which you could draw inspiration from? I did post this picture one other time that I can think of in someone else’s thread to illustrate that Colt does let out some cosmetic lemons. I find it interesting how you look at two different issues, both of which are clearly cosmetic and do not effect functionality but yet state that one is worthy of a warrenty work and the other one is normal (and hence acceptable?)? Here are my thoughts and opinions on this subject... Just because something is "normal" does not mean it is "acceptable". You stated a number of times in this thread that this or that is normal and by doing so, you seem to be inferring that because it is normal, then it is acceptable? Maybe the cosmetic issues you state are "normal" for Colt but it does not automatically follow that they are, or should be, considered “acceptable”. What is acceptable and who gets to make that call? You? Me? The collective opinion of ARFCOM? I think not. IMO, the only person who gets to make that call is the person who shelled out the money. They are the only person who has the right to decide what is and is not acceptable for the money they have spent. The only other person who has any say in it is the company and\or dealer involved. They can form an opinion as to whether the customer’s dissatisfaction is warranted and decide what they are or are not willing to do to make that customer happy. What you, me or anybody else thinks about it couldn't matter less in the grand scheme of things. Right, wrong or indifferent, Colt products will be held to a higher standard. This is partially because of their reputation as being the “best” and partially because of the premium prices their products command on the consumer market. I think it’s safe to say that most people who buy Colt’s do so because they believe they are the “Best”. While it is true that function is more important the cosmetics, it is my opinion that a high quality item should look like high quality item. Keep in mind, when you see a cosmetic flaw what you are actually seeing is mistake or missed step (or even a chain of mistakes or missed steps) made during the manufacturing process. I for one do not want to pay a premium price for something that was clearly not made 100% correctly. If somebody hasn’t chimed in with it yet, surely someone will so lets just get it out now… “Jesus Christ, it’s a fucking tool not a work of art!!!” That is true, it is a tool and I can say, as someone who owns a fairly large number of tools and has used tools day in and day out to make a living in the past, I do not accept shoddy workmanship in any of my tools. When I buy tools, I buy the best. I learned a long time ago that it’s much cheaper to buy quality tools the first time. You name a quality tool company and chances are I have some of their tools. My point is, the AR market seems to be the only “tool” market were some people seem to think its ok to pay full price for a brand new tool that clearly has cosmetic issues. Get on a Snap-On truck or go to a true contractor tool supply house and you will see that tools with cosmetic issues are not sold at full price. Instead they are marked as “blemished” and sold at a discount. If Colt (or whoever) wants to sell blemished parts at a discount, great I would probably be one of the first guys in line but when I pay top dollar for a top of the line product, then I expect a top of the line product void of any defects (cosmetic or other wise) so that I can feel like I got my money’s worth. That’s my opinion. You don’t have to agree with it but that doesn’t make my opinion any less valid. PS - Wow this got wordy!  |
LOL! Yeah, I'm guilty as charged. But I was just trying to show that ALL of the manufacturers turn out turds. Even the darling RRA. And I think I did state that of all of my stuff, the Colt's are the prettiest and the best quality. |
Ha, just thought it was funny. And there is an ugly Bushmaster thread going now, and another "is Colt going out of business thread". |
Sorry, your right you did not start a thread on the topic: archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=223627 This thread is my guide on what cosmetic issues are normal, common, and unusual. If you don't agree, that is fine. You could even start your own guide that I could critique. |
Well I guess I’m just not sure I understand your motivation or the usefulness of a "guide" documenting manufacturing mistakes that Colt makes on some routine basis? Let’s say somebody goes out and buys a Colt rifle that has cosmetic issue(s) and they are not happy about it. Then they read your "guide" and see this is a typical mistake for Colt to make. How does knowing that help them? Is the person supposed to stop being dissatisfied because he found out this isn't the first time Colt made this same or similar mistake? Here’s the thing…and maybe I’m just reading you wrong but your “guide” seems to be your way of saying, “Here are typical manufacturing mistakes by Colt. If your Colt weapon has these same flaws then suck it up and deal with it because it is “normal” or “common”? My other problem with this is your use of the word “Normal” and “Common”. How do you define “normal”? How do you define “common”? Dictionary.com seems to have the same definition of those words I do… nor·mal 1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations. com·mon 3. Widespread; prevalent. a. Occurring frequently or habitually; usual. b. Most widely known; ordinary: the common housefly. Based on those definitions, are you saying that defects like the "Attack of the angry beavers" are normal or common on Colt products? I’m sure you’ve seen many more Colts then I have but from what I seen, those kind of defects are not normal or common except maybe at times (like in 2004) when they were trying to rush products out the door. In your opinion, what percentage of Colt’s have to have a particular defects in order to be considered “normal” or “common”? (1 out of 100, 1 out of 1000, 1 out of 10,000?). May I ask if you have any data to back any of this up with or is this just personal opinion based on personal experience? If this is just your way of saying that you feel that some manufacturing flaws are acceptable on your weapons (or tools or whatever) then that’s fine. You are more then welcome to your opinion, it’s a free country and all of that but what I don’t get is why you feel the need to “promote” that view? That’s what it appears you are trying to do, to me anyway. I’m really not trying to give you a hard time and I apologize if I’m reading you or your intentions wrong. If I am, please let me know and help me understand what you hope to accomplish with all of this? |
Yes, and I've said these very words before. I think the context in which I and others have said this is when you've bought the weapon and had used it for awhile. I've never seen anyone who looks at these coming out of the box with the blems I've seen here on this thread, and accepted them as normal/acceptable because AR's are "tools". Some of these "gouges" are clearly cause for concern coming right from the box. However, after the weapon has been knocking around under the back seat and whacked from one of the other "tools" falling over in the safe, I consider that kind of blem as character, which was caused by ME, and not the mfr. I call them a tool when some whiner comes on here and wonders how he can get the brass discoloration off the deflector, thats when I  .Although thankfully the weapons I have taken delivery of have never looked as bad as some of those depicted here (yet), if I had taken posession of an AR from whoever, and it had some of these obvious dings right outta the box, I'm certain I would be inclined to send it right back-the forging blems notwithstanding. |
It is intended to guide the noob in regards to cosmetic issues with Colts. I see quite a few posts by noobs about cosmetic issues, and figured it needed to be addressed. It is also a fun thread, a hey can you top this ugly thing for the non noob turd types.
I like those.
Yes, that is what I am saying, and yes personal experience. Don't have a data base on cosmetic issues. Am working on multiple Colt data bases at the moment, and have shared a few of them; ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=271181 ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=270885 ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=271173 ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=271211 ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=264305 ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=270259 ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=270259 No plans on building a cosmetic data base, but do expect one on the SPII series.
Like I said, for noobs, and to have a bit of fun. |
That's my thing. Weapons or tools or whatever, if used, will start to show wear and tear. The more you use it, the harder you use it, the more wear and tear you will have. That is to be expected and I have no problems with that but when you buy something NIB, especially something that costs a premium like a Colt, it should look NIB IMO. That's all I'm saying here.
Well then I'm sorry for being a wet blanket  Carry on! 
|
That's a good one. Those look deeper than most. |
In manufacturing the concepts of “Production Quality”, “Industry Standard”, or “Industry Norm” are the things we have to look at before we can use the term “mistake”. Specific to Colt, their customer base is 99% professional shooters. (Military, LE, etc) In many ways, the “standards” are set by their customers. (As is common in the free market) For example if we look at what we know of the Milspecs, the closest issue we can find regarding cosmetics is anodizing, and that just details the type of anodizing to be applied. I would guess that as far as Colt’s professional shooters customer are concerned, any shade close to black or dark gray is good to go, as the focus is on the functional quality of the weapon. The thing with the AR platform is it was designed as a battle rifle using strong, and lightweight aluminum forgings that require a minimum of final machining to complete. Generally speaking a forging (especially in high volume / lower cost production) does not make for a cosmetically superior product. About 95% of the exterior surface finish (more on a A2 type upper) we look at on the AR is not machined. It is in its final form, the same way it came out of the forging. Which is way AR’s comparatively speaking is a very poor platform for a cosmetic quality. I guess what it comes down to, is that everyone votes with their pocket book and that indirectly sets the industry acceptable standard. Perhaps if someone is looking for mechanical quality (as it relates to function) Colt is an excellent choice. But if someone is looking for cosmetic quality then they would be more satisfied with an AR from Les Baer or Wilson Combat. It is kind of similar parallel in the barrel industry. Many OEM button rifled barrels are capable of 1 MOA, and some might just be able to do 3 MOA. Does it mean the 3 MOA barrel is defective or there was a “mistake” in it’s production? No – it is performing well within industry standards. If someone insists on sub MOA accuracy, then they would do best buy purchasing a cut rifled, hand lapped barrel. If that cut rifling type of barrel shot 3 MOA it would be a mistake. |
I have a couple Colt uppers that look exactly like that (forward assist area) . . . less the tan paint of course. 
|
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ugly Colts (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor