AR Sponsor
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:21:51 AM EDT
| Quite a few people that are Colt buyers are choosing this model over some of the others primarily the 6920. Outside of weight and barrel diameter is there another difference that I'm missing? |
|
Quoted:
Absolutely no question get the Colt. Quoted:
Quoted:
I see Spikes has a middy same price, hhuuummm? Absolutely no question get the Colt. I would agree if the Colt 6720 is a Mid Length, but it isn't. Not that I would worry about dwell time and internal wear, I just prefer to have the extra space for my support hand on a Middy rifle. Both Spikes Middy and Colt 6720 are great guns tho... |
|
Quoted:
I don't really notice a difference. However, the lighter the rifle, the sharper the recoil too. Just take that into consideration. Quoted:
Quoted:
If it's true, less recoil on middy, that would be great for my wife. If not, that's ok I don't really notice a difference. However, the lighter the rifle, the sharper the recoil too. Just take that into consideration. So you're really using the the 6720 and 6920 comparison. I understand lighter means prob more recoil. What I'm reading about recoil is the middy comp to the carbine. |
|
I just picked one up from PSA a few weeks ago. Put over 500 rounds through it so far without any failures. Looks and feels great outfitted in Magpul MOE furniture and a Miculek comp.
Pros: Very light and reliable. Good fit between upper and lower. Excellent operation (does not appear to be over or under gassed). Cons: Finish quality was not what I expected after hearing so many good things about Colt. Roll mark is deep on one side and light on the other. Finish is inconsistent and splotchy over most of the upper receiver. A2 flash hider was not clocked correctly. Roll pins and surrounding receiver areas beat up by rough assembly. Trigger is very long and gritty. I know that's a long list of cons, but I do love this rifle. It IS what I got it for.... lightweight! Also, I'm 6'-3" with freakishly long arms and find the carbine length very comfortable. |
|
Quoted:
No, I mean between carbine and midlength. I've got a couple of both. There may be slightly less recoil impulse but not enough that I can tell the difference. <a href="http://s304.photobucket.com/user/bdawg998/media/2014-10-08%2016.51.50.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn183/bdawg998/2014-10-08%2016.51.50.jpg</a> Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it's true, less recoil on middy, that would be great for my wife. If not, that's ok I don't really notice a difference. However, the lighter the rifle, the sharper the recoil too. Just take that into consideration. So you're really using the the 6720 and 6920 comparison. I understand lighter means prob more recoil. What I'm reading about recoil is the middy comp to the carbine. No, I mean between carbine and midlength. I've got a couple of both. There may be slightly less recoil impulse but not enough that I can tell the difference. <a href="http://s304.photobucket.com/user/bdawg998/media/2014-10-08%2016.51.50.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn183/bdawg998/2014-10-08%2016.51.50.jpg</a> I gotcha, some of these in pics are builds or mfg.? Give me a carbine model to a midlength model comparison that you can say that is a substantial difference. I read there are some guys making all their builds mids,.sounds like it's just a preference more than anything . If you're building what component have you seen to be the most beneficial? So, why middys. great pic |
|
They're all builds. I don't do factory rifles when I can build these for around $5-600. Best reason to go midlength is the increased sight radius. Easier to be more accurate with longer sight radius. Plus the wear on the parts is supposedly less on midlength systems due to a slight increase in dwell time, showing down unlock of the bolt causing less stress on the parts. I like the mids because of the benefits listed plus I just think they look better with a 16"barrel. Carbine on less than 16", like my pistol and m4 in the picture.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by what building component have I seen most beneficial? Are you asking why build versus buy? If so, you get exactly the parts you want without having to change out a bunch of stuff. And builds are usually less expensive for an equal our better quality rifle. |
|
the 6920's barrel looks sort of like the issued M4's barrel so people get it based on aesthetics -- "its what our boys use!"
In my opinion, for all practial intents and purposes, the 6720 is better for the lighter profile. Ounces equal pounds, pounds equal pain. |
|
Here's my experience with both. I like how light the 6720 is, but the rifle does jump a little more. If I were humping a SA rifle all day long and didn't need an M203, the 6720 would be fine. For serious FA use I'd prefer a heavier barrel (right now that's a 14.5" SOCOM.)
As far as mid vs. carbine, I've tried both style uppers on the 6920. Other than gas length, both uppers are exactly the same, and I just can't tell much of any difference in recoil/smoothness. As far as the availability of more real estate on the mid, all I use is a light and a VFG. As far as more sight radius on the mid, I use an RDS, so again there's no real difference to me. I've yet to try a mid on FA, so I guess I need to do that some time. YMMV. |
AR Sponsor