I just recently picked up a Colt 6920 SOCOM and I like the overall feel and fit of the rifle. After doing a detailed strip of the weapon last night, I noticed what I assume is a tooling/machining mark that was on the ejector side, behind the delta ring. I've never seen anything like this before on a 6920, so I assume it's just the random tooling marks that these rifles get at the factory prior to anodizing? Has anyone else seen this kind of mark near this area on a 6920?




Thanks!

Forging defect caused by debris in the forge.  Any other company would have rejected that, but you will try to justify it as a tier-1, operator only thing.

Yep, bad casting. Looks to be just cosmetic though.

Forged, not cast.

It gives 'er character.

Since Colt makes rifles for the military and go to war, they don't reject small cosmetic issues like other companies do (ie: Noveske)
If you want a rifle with a perfect finish I would go with Noveske..

Expected. It's a colt.

In before the "it's a tool" crowd.

Colt doesn't have to reject any blems. They can sell those to military.
Eyesores like OP's don't belong on civilian market.

I guess I'll be first:

"Send to me - will dispose of."  



~Augee

It's good OP.

Colt-- because no matter how flawed of a product they turn out, the fan boys on arfcom will still buy them because they are the mil standard.

Remember, the military contract has much less to do with quality than it does with the capacity to be able to fulfill the contract, and also being the lowest bidder.
--they don't sell Larue or Noveske ar15's at Walmart.

Just sayin'...

Seems like if colt is "the best" they should be able to get the basics right. The crowd that says "its a tool, its not supposed to be pretty" have a weak argument. Funny, I can't remember any set of tools I've bought that have as many cosmetic problems as colt. Usually with tools I get to be the first one to mark them up, whether it be rifles, wrenches, welders, etc etc. But Colt knows everyone's drinking their kool aid so they'll keep punching out rifles with amateur looking finishes.

They don't sell  Larue or Noveske rifles anywhere.

Nobody gives a shit about a company that makes like, seven rifles a year.

Don't get upset that you bought your rifle at the same place I get my toilet paper.  If it'll make you feel better, my wife got a deal on her tampons at your LGS.

Yes, because Colt, Knight's Armament, H&K, Remington 700, Barrett, Benelli M4, Surefire, Advanced Armament, Badger Ordnance, Schmidt & Bender, Premier Heritage, Leupold, Nightforce, Aimpoint, Eotech..................etc

Are all trash...

What kind of stupid statement is that..."The military doesn't care about quality it's about the lowest bidder", that's why SOCOM doesn't buy anything that doesn't past testing...

Anything being mass produced is going to have flaws.....

That's because Walmart wouldn't buy anything from a company who can't make enough of their product to fulfill orders...

"SOCOM" and Wal-Mart do not have the same rifles.

I wasn't saying SOCOM and Wal-Mart carry the same rifles...I was just pointing out his statement saying the military doesn't care about quality and just cost is flawed.

Assuming you didn't buy it to look pretty, I'd say its fine, should have never made it out the door like that but what can you do?

If you did buy it to look pretty then you'll just have to suck it up and send it to Augee for disposal.

Cost is a bigger determining factor than quality in most cases.  Just ask any veteran.

At least it didnt come looking like this!

Did you take a bandsaw to that?

Interesting.....     I assume you have a CMM report on a LaRue rail or something to back this up?

I don't understand this thread.  For starters, an AR15 is neither hammer, nor pickup truck.

We can be reasonably certain that a non-functional forging blemish has nothing to do with QC/QA or the overall functionality of the weapon, because going over the exterior with a fine toothed comb is simply not a finishing or QC step.  

We do understand what the point of forged receivers are, don't we?  Raw aluminium is pressed (oversimplifying this a lot for brevity's sake) into the basic shape of the receiver, then machined only where it has to be to make the firearm function.  The exterior, for the most part, except to machine out holes, rails, ect. is not touched at all from it's raw "molded" form.  QA/QC ensures that the internal specs and all the functioning parts are correct and everything is sound, the whole thing is surface coated for corrosion prevention, and viola.  Thousands of rifles and components are being mass produced to fill military, law enforcement, civilian, and export contracts.  Production is high enough to supply a national chain retail outlet known for low prices based on economy of scale.  

You want the biggest piece of non-news?  

Colt makes ugly AR15s.  

Sure, sometimes you get lucky, and the stars aligned, and you end up with a pretty rifle.  But that's just that, luck.

This is nothing new.  Back when the SP1s were being manufactured, someone would gouge the shit out of your lower installing the bolt catch, then follow up with a huge dollop of gloss black paint on your matte light gray anodized receiver.  So much so, that it would literally be found dripping down the side of the rifle and drying in place by the time you bought it.  Today this is considered a mark of authenticity by some collectors.  

Back in the '90s, Colt sold purple rifles, and finding a matching upper and lower was a fool's errand.  

Sure, their blued pistols, ect., many are works of art.  Their ARs are not.  Colt makes ugly AR15s.

Anyone who has been around ARs since at least the 1960s should be familiar with this concept.  

Sure, I can feel a certain amount of sympathy for a "non-gun person" or "newbie" who wants to buy a gun, doesn't consult anyone, and just buys a 6920 because he recognizes the name from that as in Guns & Ammo because it was at the rack at Walmart expecting a beautiful, pristine new gun, and learns the hard way that Colt makes ugly guns.  A certain amount, I say, because it's tempered by the fact that said buyer couldn't be bothered to do the modicum of research and find just about any gun-owning community and learn what he/she needed to know.  

If you want a pretty rifle, don't buy a Colt, or if you want a pretty rifle, and for whatever reason, it just must be a Colt, buy from somewhere where you can inspect the rifle you're buying yourself for cosmetic defects and have the right to refusal.  A simple thread, like any asking: "Hi, guys, I want an AR15 carbine that is not only reliable and functional, but with superlative fit and finish.  I am thinking of a Colt LE6920."  You would get a deluge of answers, probably from myself included, that if fit and finish are important to you, a Colt is probably not for you, along with dozens of unsolicited opinions about how it's better to build than buy, the wisdom of 16" carbines and M4 barrel, and earnest recommendations of rifles twice to three times the price of the one you named.  

Is it really that difficult for some people to just admit that appearance is important to them without having to justify it with claims that "Colt is going down hill," or "if they missed that, what else did they miss?"  

Then, of course, there's the obvious question to come: "well then, would you buy a new rifle that looked like that?"  

To which my response would be "fuck no!"  Why would I when I know that I can buy that rifle, or one just like it, some ARFCOMer's safe queen with an unbearably shamefaced blemish in the forging or quarter inch scratch in the finish from where it rubbed into another rifle in its padded case in the EE in three months for 20-40% off retail cost, sold by an owner who simply can't stand to look at a little divot or feels the need to dump it so that they can go build "BCM Jack if built with cut rate parts that were in stock because I'm not patient enough to wait for backorders and slathered in MagPul" iteration number 3,492.  In this world, why would I ever buy a new rifle period, regardless of what it looked like?  I'm fairly certain that ARFCOM is the only place were sellers lie about their round counts to make them seem higher, not lower than they actually are to protect their "hard use" reps.  Time after time you see "like new Noveske barrel - only 400 rounds," when really it's two hundred, followed by "Colt M4 barrel - used, 5,000 rounds" when really it's 15,000, oh by the way, 4,000 of that was FA.  

I know, I know, I hear ya now: "Oh you Colt fanboys, you're all the same.  Let one PSA or Noveske show up looking like that, and you'd flip."  

First of all, no, I wouldn't, but it seems to be the universal belief that Colt users are unwaveringly apologetic of the "Cult of Colt," but will suddenly jump on any other brand that errs even in the slightest.  I've never really seen much proof of that, but it seems to be a nigh universally held belief, so let's assume that it's true for the moment.  

So, a Noveske, or whomever else, shows up with a screwy mark in the forging.  Colt, we've established, for better or worse, love it or hate it, does not care.  It's simply not on their list of things to check for.  The other product, by a company that's lauded, takes great pride in not only their functional perfection, but their cosmetic perfection as well and conscientiously releases "blems" on the commercial market, releases as a factory "first" an obviously blemished component.  They've made clear that cosmetics and "fit and finish" is an integral part of their QA/QC process.  Therefore, when you see a "blem" make it through as a "first," then it's fair to say, the QA/QC mechanism broke down.  Something slipped by, and you can question - well, if this slipped by, what else did?  

Colt's finishes are variable because they just don't check for it.  It's not a part of their QA/QC process, therefore, to posit that there's something amiss with their QA/QC because of a cosmetic blemish is illogical.  The other company, however, does check for it, but they missed it.  Their QA/QC could, then, be called in question.  

And certainly, I won't be unreasonable:

Sit in front of me two rifles, one with a forging blemish, and one without - call them Colt 6920s, if you want.  Same price, same product, same condition, everything.  NIB rifles, one of which has a forging blemish, one which does not.  The cosmetic differences have been pointed out to me, because I probably wouldn't have noticed them otherwise, and say "pick one."  More than likely, I would pick the "prettier" of the two.  All other concerns being satisfied, why not?  Until it turns out the serial number on the blemished one has the digits of my birthday in it.  Then maybe I'd pick that one.  But the un-blemished one has the cooler rollmark, "M4 CARBINE" instead of "SPORTER M4."  Well, then I want the cooler rollmark.  Whatever - now we're just plain old getting absurd.  Well, this one looks like it was lubed better at the factory.  And so on and so forth.  Probably, I would grab the one closer to me on the rack.  I see no reason to sit at a gun shop examining two otherwise identical rifles with a magnifying glass to decide which one I like better.  

But, if you want a pretty Colt, probably you should, and if that's what you want, more power to you, go for it.  

Otherwise, Colt makes ugly rifles.  They don't give a lick about "fit and finish," and don't detail inspect the exterior finish of their rifles.  

Don't like it?  Rather than bitching with your keyboard, vote with your wallet, as many already do.  

Either Colt will feel the loss and realize that this generation of commercial AR buyers at least demands superior "fit and finish" and you'll get your way, or those who do not care will simply continue to buy what satisfies them, leaving you with only a hundred or so other AR manufacturers from which to choose from to decide what satisfies you, and you need only to nurse your wounded pride that not enough people agree with you that "fit and finish" is important enough to stop buying Colt products.    

You know what the funny thing is?  The "Colt haters" used to complain "wah wah, Colt only distributes through Law Enforcement distributors!"  and "they're so expensive, who do they think they are?"  So, Colt lowers their MSRP by $200 and saturate the market, causing their prices to go down by another $100, and expands their distribution to include a large big box retailer, making their products available to literally any Tom, Dick, or Stanley who wants one and can get to a Walmart, and suddenly we get "my wife gets her tampons at your LGS" (hilarious, however, ).

I don't care about cosmetics, I like Colts.  I also like BCM, DD, LMT, ect. and own many of their products.  Hell, I even have a PSA LPK installed in one rifle.  While there certainly are some over-the-top and downright irritating Colt "fan-boys" out there, it has been my experience and observation that the Colt "haters" are far more vocal, incessant, and irrational, whom Colt could give everything they wanted, and they would still find something to hate them for, including for giving them exactly what they wanted.  

~Augee

Glad your back.

I agree, but in fairness to the "Colt haters," GLOCKREAPER alone gives a good thousand of them a free pass.

Any forged metal object has to be a casting first, as the molten metal is poured into a mold to create the 'blank' which is later forged into the general shape of the desired object.

Augee

I accept your apology.

It's a rifle now sold at Walmart...produced in large quantities and is mil spec. I rattle canned mine and bought a Noveske!

Augee, sorry but I disagree with a bit of your post QA/QC should be not only the functionality but also the fit and finish of a rifle. The buyer is paying for that too. The buyer is also paying for the advertised bits to be on his rifle. I bought one (not Colt) that was advertised to have a 1:7 barrel. It didn't come with it. It had a great 1:9 barrel on it and though I thought about keeping it I sent it back to the OEM to have the right barrel put on it. When I got it back it looked like they had swapped the whole upper out with a used upper with the right 1:7 barrel, or as they said they test fired it... Looked like they test fired it for a couple hundred rounds though. It also came back with the casing deflector marred up. Now I did put some touchup on that and the rifle has worked flawlessly since. But we pay our money and we expect to get what we are supposed to get in good condition and, in my view, that includes good fit and finish.

'Nuff said. Don't EVER buy a Colt.

I don't know about anybody else, but I wouldn't buy a new vehicle with a dent in it. When it is sold as "new" it should BE new. And flawless.
Nobody says, "Hey, I bought a new car. It runs great, but the hood is all rusted. It doesn't matter to me though, because I'm gonna drive it, and the rust doesn't affect the functionality of the car."

That is what everybody who sticks up for Colt and their shitty QC sound like to me.

A person who has such blind devotion to a brand that they are willing to look past these obvious defects isn't what bothers me about Colt. The thing that I don't like about them, is if they are willing to let such obvious imperfections leave their factory, what else might they be missing in the QC department? And why would they let so many blatantly imperfect products hit the market, if they had any sense of pride in the product they are manufacturing?

That's rough.

Correct

So.  How much do those things cost in 2-Bore anyway?

I'd call them...wait on hold for 30 minutes...and HOPE that they would fix it.


A $1400 rifle shouldn't have that big of an imperfection in the forging.

No, because NcStar doesn't meet their minimum spec (which includes durability), but if it did, and they tried for a govt contract, I bet they'd get it, and the next thing you see is NcStar prices going up, and every Colt fanboy throwing one on their sweet superstore rifle.

Regardless, this train went off the tracks, and we need to get it back on before it gets locked because of our purse swinging.  Sorry OP.

Gov't sets specs.  Companies build rifles/items to those specs.  Cheapest company that can build to those specs and passes tests wins.

I'm a vet.  I don't own a Colt.  Not that they don't work fine, I never had any major problems with any M4's that weren't magazine related.  

Problem is, there are better mousetraps out there.  14.5 barrels should have a mid length gas system, if for nothing else, 2 extra inches of rail so you can get a real grip on the rifle....or they need to ditch non free floated 7" rails.

Hammer forged barrels are better for combat weapons.

Those are my two major issues with Colt or FN M4's.  They're fine for what they are, but I'll be damned if I spend 1400 dollars on a weapon "because its a colt" when there are plenty of other companies out there that make the rest of the components not mentioned above just as good as Colt, but offer better quality barrels, and proper length gas systems/handguards.

It makes it even worse when Colt makes the LE6920 with carbine gas systems and a 16" barrel...its just a fucking stupid setup, and there are inherently better setups available, regardless of cost.

So yes, you have a 1400 dollar rifle from a company that frankly doesn't care about you, or the appearance of their rifles, with features that are old and make no sense.  Better options out there, plain and simple.

Would anyone defending Colt be alright spending a grand on a Rem700 that looked like shit? I think of it this way if that shit gets overlooked what else is?

LMFAO.

Pretty much sums it up.

That's Colt Quality!

Accept no substitutes.  It is the original AR fuzz, all others' fuzz is merely a failed attempt.

With all of the info on how the Colts end up on the outside. How do we know the inside is any better. Is everyone taking Colt's word on it is Mil Spec and just simply assuming the inside is the same. Why do people put up with the crap fit and finish on the outside and assume the rest was done properly. How can you trust in the rest of what they say they do, when the parts you see are done so bad? The exterior finish you get is a quality representation of the rest of the rifle. Plain and simple it just simply shows Colt rushes things into production. What other corners are being cut? Lot's of performance as well, posts showing up on here about Colt's. I know a lot of people like them. but honestly with government cutting them out and I would assume their trying to keep their business in the green in these hard times. Are you really getting a best buy from them right now. I am not paying new prices for a firearm that comes pre shipped in well used condition. I could care less what any purse swinging fan boy Colt fan says cause they read it on the interwebs.

That's Colt factory fuzz! It's still stuck there.

Colt rifles are simply the cheapest produced weapons that the government could get that worked most of the time.... and even then Colt had to get a special deal or they wouldn't have held that contract so long. I dont think that Colt rifles are going to get any better as time goes on now that they have lost a huge meal ticket.

P-Whacker,

LOL.

I would try to correct your misunderstandings, misperceptions, and outright misquotes, but from what you wrote, I can tell that reading comprehension is not your strong suit.  I won't waste any more time than to say, reread what I said.

Monadh

I can find a dozen flaws in any new car. Including a hand built Aston Martin. Most of the flaws are at the seams in body paneling, or in the paintwork. Perfection does not exist.