AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/31/2009 8:57:51 AM EDT
|
Ok I get Colt is assumed to be top of the line. My questions is this:
If I put a Colt LE upper on a LMT lower, have I lost that much in reliability? Got to thinking the Colt lower is a forging like all the rest with a LPK, so if there is a big difference, I just don't see it. The upper - OK - maybe, so if I have a Colt BCG and upper, why is it considered by some to be less of a rifle (with the exception it's not all Colt as far as resale). I have a Colt HBAR upper, using a FF rail, flip up front sight and gas block, Colt BCG on a LMT lower with a LMT 2 stage trigger. Not trying to get the Colt cool aid drinkers vs the rest of "it's just as good," but DO want an honest evaluation, |
|
You've lost nothing.
LMT is generally considered Colts equal anyway. Really the only thing that people still say puts Colt above them is that LMT doesn't park under their FSB and uses straight pins in the sight base. Personally, I think your combo would be better than a straight Colt. You have ALL the benefits of Colt and got rid of the one disadvantage, which is oversized pins in the FCG group. LMT used standard size. It's also generally accepted that the lower itself doesn't make any difference as long as its in spec and a quality LPK is used. (LMT will be good to go) Also, some say that a 2 stage trigger is less reliable. I personally haven't had any issues with mine (a RRA with 14k+ rounds, and an LMT with around 3k) |
|
Quoted:
You've lost nothing. LMT is generally considered Colts equal anyway. Really the only thing that people still say puts Colt above them is that LMT doesn't park under their FSB and uses straight pins in the sight base. Personally, I think your combo would be better than a straight Colt. You have ALL the benefits of Colt and got rid of the one disadvantage, which is oversized pins in the FCG group. LMT used standard size. It's also generally accepted that the lower itself doesn't make any difference as long as its in spec and a quality LPK is used. (LMT will be good to go) Also, some say that a 2 stage trigger is less reliable. I personally haven't had any issues with mine (a RRA with 14k+ rounds, and an LMT with around 3k) I'm spoiled by the 2 stage triggers. RRA are better than the LMT IMO. Have a 2 stage on all my rifles. |
|
Quoted:
Colt and LMT are just about equal IMO....I don't own LMT but have handled and shot a few, and just about anyone who owns one loves it. Looks like it's pretty much agreed that a Colt upper on a LMT lower is as good, as to function, as a 100% Colt. Thanks all. |
|
Many argue this way or that but it's not a matter of function or accuracy. Most AR's work just fine and come out of the box with similar accuracy. The features you pay extra for on Colt (individual testing of components as opposed to batch testing) are not really needed on a civilan (or even a military) gun. When is the last time you heard of an AR barrel blowing up? For thousands produced, batch testing is just fine. There is a quality control science to it and if you're not an engineer (I am) and you don't know how metallurgy and manufacturing quality control play together in audited ISO 9000 manufacturing processes then I don't want to hear how you knew this guy that knew this guy. It's about process, probabilities and statistics, and sample rates. If you just want it and you're willing to pay the extra $600 or so for it, fine by me. Will it ever make any difference? Nope. And if you say something like 'betting your life on statistics and probabilities isn't for you' then I would point out that you do it every single day by driving your car, turning on your microwave, or starting up your lawnmower with components that went through batch testing. Finally, go to a three gun match. Are they all Colts? Umm.. no. And these guys spend a lot more and rely on their guns for accuracy and reliability over many more thousands of rounds a lot more than most of us will.
So.. if it makes you feel good to say 'I've got the best' then by all means. You certainly do get some specific things for your money along with paying more for the name. But your evidence of that will be anecdotal and not based on the engineering science of process and production. And until we have a JD Powers for AR's, I don't think there is any actual data to the contrary. |
|
Spook, you are so right. There are a lot of folks on here that do not really understand the inspection/quality process. If you have manufacturer A making bolts, and they inspect every one, but they have to throw every fourth one (25%), that ain't a good thing. (They have a 25% reject/scrap rate). Sometimes when sales are really good, marginal parts are approved anyway because of the low percentage of chance of being returned as defective.
If manufacturer B has results to show that they have good control over their manufacturing process, and inspects one bolt out of 25, or even one hundred, that is acceptable. As long as the parts they inspect are conforming to spec, the chances that defective part gets thru is very slight. The incident of non-conforming parts when discovered, can easily be traced back to a starting point, and the defective parts can be culled. They actually have the process down to a science much better than manufacturer A because they are more consistant in quality. One hundred percent inspection does not make the parts better. I don't know if other folks have talked about the inspection process, but it is no guarantee of a manufacturer have control over the parts they produce. They have to take other steps based on inspection results to improve their quality. |
|
All the engineering rhetoric is fine and dandy - but it is no coincidence that the company with the most stringent testing standards is also the most commonly named reliable brand from tactical rifle instructors. There are brands that are known to fail in these classes where a mere 800ish rounds are fired, and that is a fact. Anecdotal evidence from industry pros is valuable information, dont think it's not.
It's almost like you guys are arguing that a lack of statistical data is evidence of equality. ETA, I also find it odd that spook brought iso 9000 up, as if all or most AR makers are compliant. Which, by the way, could be an interesting counter argument, favoring Colt in terms of "processes, etc". |
|
Consistency comes into play as well. If your product is a "good" product and consistent, that goes a long way as well. I saw a few Colts crap out over my career, but percentage-wise it was minuscule. Had the Marines used Bushmasters by the thousands for over 3 decades I am sure they would have grown into the same consistency. The fact is that Colt is "The Rifle" and has been for a long time. They got their foot in the door and did what they needed to to keep the contracts rolling. I have said it before and will say it again, are they the "best" rifle? Maybe not technically, but they do enough right to keep their place. I am sure that the long-standing relationship with the Military goes a looooong way.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
RRA two stage triggers do not belong on fighting rifles. I still like them, but why praytell. They fail with disturbing regularity. I've trashed one and seen another trashed, each in less than a thousand rounds. Come to find lots of them fail. I've been shooting sub minute with a stock Colt trigger lately when I have to so it's not a major concern for me. I want to try the Geisselle, but of course I will try it first on a game gun. |
|
"It's almost like you guys are arguing that a lack of statistical data is evidence of equality"
Huh??? Wha?? So I am arguing that if there is no statistical data, then all components are equal!??!????!?????????????????????? I don't recall seeing that anywhere. What spook said is that there is not a lot of real hard data for statements about quality. Anecdotal evidence is just that... " My barbers brother who has a friend that has a DPMS with 10,000 rounds thru it and it never failed. "" My cousin's brother in law had a Colt that broke the first time out." That kind of statement. Perhaps the guys that run the training courses have a few stories too. But they don't really know the history of the guns the students bring. Like someone who shows up with a brand new BM and has a failure. We don't know how it's ever been cleaned, what kind of ammo went thru it, other factors. He doesn't know if the gun had the original parts replaced by some unscrupulous seller/dealer with cheaper stuff. Or assembled with less than good parts. If tolerances are proper. There are a lot of variables. A person shouldn't pass off a comment without a knowledge of all the facts. Some training instructors are not real experts either. They are only as good as what they can make you believe they are. For instance Jeff Cooper, who some people think is the greatest combat shooter to walk the planet once wrote that goblins are now hitting the front of cars with sledge hammers. and the air bags are going off and pinning the occupants to the seats, and then they are robbed. I happened to work on the air bag program several decades ago and saw that he was more full of shit than a Christmas turkey... First of all, an air bag will not deploy from an impact like that. It has a primary and secondary inflator that must see all the correct parameters before they deploy. If you will look at a deployed air bag, you will see that it has open vent holes. It does not contain ANY pressure. The propellent charge blows it out, and it deflates in less than a second. It cannot posiibly trap you. But this guy who has no expertise in the field states this as a fact. There are too many people out there who would love to have others think they are gurus at something. Unfortunately, they lack the expertise, so they should stick to their area of knowledge and not stray too far out on a limb. Their observations are influenced by their expertise or lack of expertise in evaluating mechanical failures. I think Cooper was a hell of a shooter, but that's it. 
|
|
Quoted:
Many argue this way or that but it's not a matter of function or accuracy. Most AR's work just fine and come out of the box with similar accuracy. The features you pay extra for on Colt (individual testing of components as opposed to batch testing) are not really needed on a civilan (or even a military) gun. When is the last time you heard of an AR barrel blowing up? For thousands produced, batch testing is just fine. There is a quality control science to it and if you're not an engineer (I am) and you don't know how metallurgy and manufacturing quality control play together in audited ISO 9000 manufacturing processes then I don't want to hear how you knew this guy that knew this guy. It's about process, probabilities and statistics, and sample rates. If you just want it and you're willing to pay the extra $600 or so for it, fine by me. Will it ever make any difference? Nope. And if you say something like 'betting your life on statistics and probabilities isn't for you' then I would point out that you do it every single day by driving your car, turning on your microwave, or starting up your lawnmower with components that went through batch testing. Finally, go to a three gun match. Are they all Colts? Umm.. no. And these guys spend a lot more and rely on their guns for accuracy and reliability over many more thousands of rounds a lot more than most of us will. So.. if it makes you feel good to say 'I've got the best' then by all means. You certainly do get some specific things for your money along with paying more for the name. But your evidence of that will be anecdotal and not based on the engineering science of process and production. And until we have a JD Powers for AR's, I don't think there is any actual data to the contrary. You sir, are my new role-model. If even 1/3 of the people on here would actually take heed of what you say, I would be happy. But, alas, there is NO getting through to the "Colt", "mil-spec." crowd. Because they all know that the military uses the ultimate standard.... 
When did the mil.-spec. become the standard by which all others are measured? It is only a spec.. I could spec. out an AR that would have better materials than the mil.spec.. You have to have 4150.....
Parkerized under the FSB...
Proof tested barrel, which actually stresses the barrel and could reduce overall life, thus requiring an MP test.... 
I mean, come on, we have all read about the bolt and barrel failures of non-Colt products. Oh wait, maybe we haven't. Colt is definately worth $400-600 more.....
I forgot, they have a higher resale....Compared to what, I don't know. I have made many on every upper I have sold (4 RRA) and they were used. |
|
I can not say who is better or not (aside from the obvious junk) based on technical specs or engineering specifications. What I can say is based upon my experience with the weapons.
There is no doubt Colt makes a good firearm and not just AR’s. Yet take a company like Delton, so do they. Let me compare it like this. When I was still in service the M16 I used had some milage on it but nevertheless it was quite accurate at 500 meters open sights. I have a Delton that I would like to compare it too as far as performance. Using similar ammo 5.56 brass cased and so forth I can still get shot groups that rival what I experienced in the military. To top it off the gas keys are actually set properly while I remember several M16’s while in service were not even set. By the way the BCG in my Delton is the finest machining I have ever seen on a bolt, it shocked the *&^) out of me especially when I compared it to a Bushmaster in a store one day. Smooth as a babies butt. My point is that rifles are a lot like other things in life. You want quality but when does brand start to override what quality is? I really do not know where to draw the line on that question. What I can say is you want a rifle that offers serviceability and longevity if you take care of it. When it comes to that you can take a Colt, RRA or whatever to a Delton and they all offer that. The next question you need to answer is ROI (return on investment). If you would ever think about selling the rifle, go with the solid brands no doubt. |
|
Sorry, but I have to comment on this argument, because some people are supporting it, and it's really messed up.
Quoted:
Many argue this way or that but it's not a matter of function or accuracy. Most AR's work just fine and come out of the box with similar accuracy. First, it really is a matter of function and accuracy. That's what the whole point is with these rifles, and people want to know if Colts function reliably and accurately, especially when compared to similarly designed guns. Now, when you say, "most work just fine", are you basing this on statistical evidence or anecdotal? Well, let's wait a moment on that for now... The features you pay extra for on Colt (individual testing of components as opposed to batch testing) are not really needed on a civilan (or even a military) gun. When is the last time you heard of an AR barrel blowing up?
Okay, now you are actually asking (rhetorically maybe) for anecdotal evidence - am I right? "When was the last time you heard...?" So, I guess anecdotal evidence might be valuable in some instances... I might equally ask you, "when was the last time you heard about ARs failing in organized carbine training environments?" I have heard it for years. For thousands produced, batch testing is just fine. There is a quality control science to it and if you're not an engineer (I am) and you don't know how metallurgy and manufacturing quality control play together in audited ISO 9000 manufacturing processes then I don't want to hear how you knew this guy that knew this guy.
Well, maybe, I said maybe, batch testing is "fine" in your context, which is within a certified ISO 9000 environment. However, you were talking about "most ARs" in the beginning, and I would venture to say that most manufacturers are not ISO-certified. So, what exactly is their QC based upon? If you don't know, than engineer or not, you really can't comment on their quality control, or their quality. However, the government mandates high standards for companies like Colt and Knight's Armament, among others. These are expensive to implement, and I can't imagine why most manufacturers would do it if they weren't required to do so. So, as civilians, we may benefit from this type of stringent QC, at least if we buy Colt rifles. And by the way, who don't you want to hear anecdotal evidence about "this guy" or that guy? Before, you seemed okay with anecdotal evidence. It's about process, probabilities and statistics, and sample rates.
Whoa whoa whoa, hold on a minute. Sample rates? Which sample? Is your sample size large enough? How do you know? What level of error are you accepting? Why? Is your sample representative of what you're sampling? What rate? A failure rate within your sample? Who is judging these things and by what standard? That's where your aforementioned ISO standards come into play. But, we don't know which AR manufacturers use these standards - so, I could now argue, based on your reasoning, that Colt DOES use these high QC standards, and therefore they most likely DO make a better average product. Let's not pretend that average AR makers build under the QC guidelines that Colt does. Let's agree on that, at least. By the way, I'm interested in your qualifications with regard to statistics, since you're trying to disqualify any non-engineers from being able to argue against you. If you just want it and you're willing to pay the extra $600 or so for it, fine by me. Will it ever make any difference? Nope.
I have to laugh at this. How can you confidently state that it will never make any difference? I'll tell you this, I would much rather have a Colt in my hands if I were in Iraq right now that I would a DPMS, for example. (Not that DPMS is bad, but it's not Colt) And I do understand statistics, by the way. And if you say something like 'betting your life on statistics and probabilities isn't for you' then I would point out that you do it every single day by driving your car, turning on your microwave, or starting up your lawnmower with components that went through batch testing.
If I ever use my car, microwave, or lawnmower to defend my life, then I'll consider this. But, we're talking about a tool that is specifically designed as a weapon. Moreover, there does exist a list of manufacturers of guns that are known to make unreliable products - so, again, I don't think your analogy fits at all. Finally, go to a three gun match. Are they all Colts? Umm.. no. And these guys spend a lot more and rely on their guns for accuracy and reliability over many more thousands of rounds a lot more than most of us will.
Let me get this straight: so, guys that spend upwards $3000 on hand-built custom job-specific competition guns don't buy Colts, and this supports your argument that most ARs that are $600 or so cheaper than Colt function as well as Colts. Sorry, but I see absolutely no value in this point of yours at all. In fact, I can't fathom why you would make this argument. It doesn't make sense. If money is no object, of course you can improve on Colt rifles, particularly when it comes to match-grade accuracy. But, your whole argument is about saving money. I guess I'll ask the inverse question - why don't the Navy SEALs use open-division STI 1911s? We know they have the budget. Yet, they don't typically use match guns for general purpose ops. (the answer is that combat pistols like Sig are much more reliable in the field) So.. if it makes you feel good to say 'I've got the best' then by all means. You certainly do get some specific things for your money along with paying more for the name. But your evidence of that will be anecdotal and not based on the engineering science of process and production. And until we have a JD Powers for AR's, I don't think there is any actual data to the contrary.
Okay, so remember your question, "have you ever heard of barrels blowing up?" Since you wanted anecdotal evidence, why don't you read the local thread, "what breaks in a carbine course?" There, you can hear about all sorts of failures, and you will also hear about why Colt is one of the most reliable rifles in the AR family. If you know any tactical rifle instructors, why don't you ask them too. You see, anecdotal evidence works pretty well in the age of the internet, because isolated incidents are pretty clear, and patterns are as well. That's why there are a few brands, maybe Vulcan or Olympic, that people know they can't trust in a carbine course, for instance. Regarding "process and production", there are only a handful of firearms manufacturers that supply to civilians that can compare with Colt. Don't take my word for it. There is legit industry pro who said on this very forum, the following: "When it comes to building 5.56 rifles Colt is hard to beat they have produced more rifles than all the other companies combined many times over. They have a very proven track record." "AR builders fall into two categories for me as well; those that assemble parts and those than manufacture and build rifles. Companies that don't build full-auto guns on a regular basis do not understand some of the real problems that can be run into." ––-C. Reed Knight III, Knight's Armament I'll take his word for it. |
|
What Parts Break In A Carbine Course?
Not all lower parts kits are created equal. Lowers, by and large, are pretty hard to screw up, though some companies manage to do it on a regular basis. |
|
- Smith and Wesson is an ISO 9000/9001 company. Don't know about the rest but since it's often a basic criteria in competing for state and federal business, I suspect many are.
- Still haven't seen a specific reason why a Colt is any better than any other quality manufacturer. |
|
Quoted:
- Smith and Wesson is an ISO 9000/9001 company. Don't know about the rest but since it's often a basic criteria in competing for state and federal business, I suspect many are. - Still haven't seen a specific reason why a Colt is any better than any other quality manufacturer. Read the 'what breaks in a carbine course' thread. Lots of specifics there. Also, its not that theyre better than all others, but theyre a better bet than the most of the rifles that are, as you say, 600 dollars less. Smaller custom shops, and the like, certainly have the capability to take QC to a very high level - Noveske I suppose may be an example (i dont own one, so i dont speak from experience). But you pay more for those. |
|
Do you know what ISO means? Heres the non-technical meaning. A said X company allows ISO to come inspect there company. They are given a set of standards before inspection. The ISO people arrive and conduct the inspection, if they pass they are ISO 9000, if not they get a second chance, and attain ISO 9001, and so on for ISO 9002, 9003, etc.
Now in the machine shop I worked in, we attained ISO 9000 (that means 1st try). For me I remember what it meant on the shop floor as a regular employee. Our tools had to be up on calibrations. Paperwork had to be closely detailed and followed as to manufacturing standards. Safety codes had to be set and closely obeyed. The company main office had to be run accordingly, etc, you get the point. It was basically a company inspection by an outside party. Not a product per say inspection. They didnt say, "O' here I see your using said X steel and should be using said Z steel for that application". At no time do I remember the ISO people inspecting the finished part to any great extent. They cant be there for every part, like a in-house part inspector. That said, the Colt thing. Why do you guys keep beating each other up over Colt vs the other guy? Sure as stated before Colts are great. Why, they test parts, they have held the govt contract forever, etc! And yes most all companies test parts, but..as mentioned they (many other companies) test parts in bins, or batches, or runs. But no other company has doing it consistantly for as long. Why would I pick Colt? Because, its cool to own a Colt, the roll stamps are cool to collect, they cost more money, they have an astounding resale value (even when fired), the parts are good, and the list goes on. The one I like the most is value. You get what you pay for. You buy once and you dont look back. Now yes Noveske for example can build great rifles. But your not comparing apples to apples. A Colt 6920 is what I call a stock Corvette ZR1. A Noveske all decked out would be a Callaway Corvette. Its had a go over by most likely a single builder, not a production line worker. I say this. Buy a Noveske if you can for something like around $2000 plus (please Im sure ya'll will correct me if Im wrong on price). Or find a fair deal in this market and buy a 6920 (or any factory new or like new Colt, 6721, 6520) and tweak it with a new stock and pistol grip, FF HG (Larue, etc), a new barrel of choice, trigger of choice (Geissele SSA), and accesories. The difference in the end, you'd have a Colt MPI tested bolt. The other brand could have an MPI tested bolt as well, but not from Colt. Finally I say Colt for "Resale Value" 1st, MPI bolt 2nd, Coolness 3rd. To the average Joe, at this point in our lives your just shooting it. Buy what you like or buy what you can get your hands on in this market. |
|
Quoted:
- Smith and Wesson is an ISO 9000/9001 company. Don't know about the rest but since it's often a basic criteria in competing for state and federal business, I suspect many are. - Still haven't seen a specific reason why a Colt is any better than any other quality manufacturer. Previously, sir, you said, "If you just want it and you're willing to pay the extra $600 or so for it, fine by me. Will it ever make any difference? Nope." I ask you, very simply, where can I get a reliable and accurate AR 15 for $600 or so less than a Colt. (I just ordered a 6520 for $1199) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
- Smith and Wesson is an ISO 9000/9001 company. Don't know about the rest but since it's often a basic criteria in competing for state and federal business, I suspect many are. - Still haven't seen a specific reason why a Colt is any better than any other quality manufacturer. Previously, sir, you said, "If you just want it and you're willing to pay the extra $600 or so for it, fine by me. Will it ever make any difference? Nope." I ask you, very simply, where can I get a reliable and accurate AR 15 for $600 or so less than a Colt. (I just ordered a 6520 for $1199) I can build a better one for $850..So it's only $350 difference. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
- Smith and Wesson is an ISO 9000/9001 company. Don't know about the rest but since it's often a basic criteria in competing for state and federal business, I suspect many are. - Still haven't seen a specific reason why a Colt is any better than any other quality manufacturer. Previously, sir, you said, "If you just want it and you're willing to pay the extra $600 or so for it, fine by me. Will it ever make any difference? Nope." I ask you, very simply, where can I get a reliable and accurate AR 15 for $600 or so less than a Colt. (I just ordered a 6520 for $1199) I can build a better one for $850..So it's only $350 difference. One guy says for "$600 or so less" than a Colt, rifles can be had that are of similar quality - or, it will never make any difference, to be exact. Another guy says, "I can build a better one for $850". I'm not a noob, but I like to learn things, and there is a lot to learn here. I'll ask again, please be specific - how can I get a rifle for $850 that is better than the 6520 I ordered? Or, even more impressive, how can I get a rifle that is just as good for $600 less. If it's true, than I'll add another rifle to my collection, but I can't seem to get anyone to give specifics. I was very specific on the cost and the model number of the rifle I ordered. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
- Smith and Wesson is an ISO 9000/9001 company. Don't know about the rest but since it's often a basic criteria in competing for state and federal business, I suspect many are. - Still haven't seen a specific reason why a Colt is any better than any other quality manufacturer. Previously, sir, you said, "If you just want it and you're willing to pay the extra $600 or so for it, fine by me. Will it ever make any difference? Nope." I ask you, very simply, where can I get a reliable and accurate AR 15 for $600 or so less than a Colt. (I just ordered a 6520 for $1199) I can build a better one for $850..So it's only $350 difference. You could build a rifle that would be, on paper, on par with a Colt. That is, if you built it the same way they did, staked the castle nut, etc etc. But you could not, down the road, sell it for as much as a Colt. Nor could you, as nark did, buy all those parts in one day - you'd have to wait weeks and hope that you were by your computer when they came in stock. For example, I just sold a Colt lower for $850. |
|
Quoted:
One guy says for "$600 or so less" than a Colt, rifles can be had that are of similar quality - or, it will never make any difference, to be exact. Another guy says, "I can build a better one for $850". I'm not a noob, but I like to learn things, and there is a lot to learn here. I'll ask again, please be specific - how can I get a rifle for $850 that is better than the 6520 I ordered? Or, even more impressive, how can I get a rifle that is just as good for $600 less. If it's true, than I'll add another rifle to my collection, but I can't seem to get anyone to give specifics. I was very specific on the cost and the model number of the rifle I ordered. Only way to get a 6520 is to buy one. All the cool kids want M4s and midlengths, very few companies making true lightweights, only one making a quality one. I don't think michakav understands what a 6520 is. |
AR Sponsor