User Panel
Posted: 10/26/2003 9:31:38 AM EDT
I can't understand why they don't get it. They seem to be finally showing some signs that the Colt owners and executive ranks are not as totally stupid as in past years, but they're still not reading and responding to the marketplace. Why?
It boggles the mind that Colt, who at one time absolutely owned the AR15 market, has sunk so low as to be basically bankrupt, and bonehead decisions such as insisting on building rifles with goofy part sizes (either front pivot or fire control) had a lot to do with that. It certainly made it easy for their competitors to grow at their expense. I am a Colt fan, but cannot see a future for them as a company if they don't do what every other business has to do--offer products that are competitive in quality, price, and features that customers want to buy. When civilians are risking the hassle of buying LEO lowers just to get a Colt with standard size parts, something is very wrong in Colt's executive suite if they don't provide that product. |
|
To answer your question......No
Colt will never offer a "standard milspec" AR and will continue their PC ways even if the AWB goes away. I would be the FIRST in line to buy a new Colt **IF** I could buy a AR15 that's actually rollmarked "AR15-A2" with no PC "sporter" or "match target" crap on them and with std pins, pivot, carrier and no sear block. Basically, I want a Colt M16 or M4, but in semi only. It won't happen. |
|
Errr.. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but even the LEO lowers are mfg with "large" trigger and hammer pins. |
|
|
I had heard they were now standard. Guess not. Colt is even dumber than I thought, when they are running machinery making standard size parts all day long, but choose to make non-standard parts as well. All they have to do is stop the receiver before they drill the auto sear hole, and stamp them differently. Viola! AR15 instead of M16. How simple could it be? Does anyone know if a B-school has ever written a case study on Colt management blunders? It would be an interesting one. I don't care if they stamp bunny rabbits on them--just make a receiver that will accept all standard parts and most of us would be happy. |
||
|
Wrong! I have a few that are standard size holes, small front push pin, but they still have a sear block made of aluminum. cruizer |
||
|
Well, if you do have some with small trigger and hammer pins, I would hold on to them because you have some really rare puppies there. |
|
|
Colt switched to the big fire control pins in some kind of switch to use regular pivot pins. ATF has told them that they cannot return to smaller pins, even though everyone else makes them.
The AR15 was banned by name, so until the AWB is over, it's not an option. Whether they'll do it after? Doubt it, but when there aren't any more "LEO rifles" you'll be able to buy either way I think. |
|
Personally I don't give a rat's ass about FCG pin size, and the Colt bashing "pin kommandos" shouldn't care either. You can buy .170 FCG parts anywhere, even Bushmaster sells the complete Colt .170 FCG kit for $49.95.
One of the nicest thing about having a proprietary pin size is that most of the generic parts cloners don't make them. If I buy .170 FCG parts chances are they are the real thing, and not some POS copy that came from "Bubba's-House-O-Parts". It cracks me up that most of the pin kommandos who complain about Colt not following the "milspec" own rifles with 1/9 twist barrels and plastic trigger guards. I'll gladly stick to my "non milspec" Colts... By the way, read this if you want to learn about the cloners build quality: AR15 deficiencies |
|
Honestly i have my fair share of pre and post ban Colt AR's and this pin size issue is a dead horse argument. If you dont like changes to the Colt product line go get something with a Lion or Snake die roll marking and be happy. None of these guns are exactly Military spec so deal with it and move on....For us Colt owners its the best investment for dollars spent and thats the way it is.... V 2
|
|
That would violate Colt's long-standing marketing policy of offering guns in unwanted variations, failing to offer popular options, failing to offer models/styles/calibers/actions that the rest of the market cant make enough of, all at a substantially higher than normal price. Why mess with it, its work for them.....sort of. Ok, ok, it hasnt...aaaaaand they've almost gone under a couple of times, but DAMMIT, they're not about offering what YOU want. |
|
|
You know for a "Colt Guy" your posts sound a lot like a . If your such a Colt guy why are you bad mouthing them on every forum? We have more than enough "Colt Haters" on this website with a chip on their shoulder and an ax to grind. Give it a rest or move on. CJan_NH, I agree with you 100%. [Quote:from CJan_NH] "It cracks me up that most of the pin kommandos who complain about Colt not following the "milspec" own rifles with 1/9 twist barrels and plastic trigger guards". I could not agree more.
|
|
Or the wrong steel. |
|
|
If Colt didn't care about giving civilian customers what they wanted then they never would have released the 6400c. Aside from the brake and the fixed telestock that gun is damn near perfect. |
|
|
I'd like someone to find a better Mil-Spec buy than the 6400C.
|
|
I've probably got more loyalty to Colt, and more Colt products, than most of you, so drop the name calling, rationalizing, and "don't knock my precious Colt" for a minute, folks, and tell me this. Where would Colt be today if they had offered a "mil spec" rifle--as much as anyone's guns are mil-spec--all along? Would Bushmaster--an upstart company years ago--be the largest maker of AR15's? Would Olympic--an also-ran in the 80's--be so big? Armalite? DPMS? Rock River? Would there be a new AR15 maker every year? Would Colt be practically on its knees, with its future in question? The fact that someone sees fault in Colt's decisions, or their stupidity in letting lawyers and politicians run a gun company into the ground, doesn't mean they're a Colt hater. It means they are concerned about the future of the company. If you don't see that, you aren't listening. |
|
Colt is an American icon. I WANT to see them offering the best at competitive prices. Id like to see them dominating the 1911 and AR15 market.
As it stands now, they dont even come close. |
|
Exactly. |
|
|
Imcoltsguy and Lumpy: I guess the question that needs to be answered then is what would you guys do differently if you ran Colt?
I see the same anti-Colt arguments ad nauseum and I guess I'm at a loss trying to figure out why they mean anything. A few of the most common that come to mind: Colt isn't "milspec": Past Colts have had a protruding sear block and a front takedown screw instead of a conventional front pushpin. Enough people complained and Colt changed it. Current civilian Colts have both a standard front pushpin and no protruding sear block. -Colt ships most of their rifles with a 1/7 ROT barrel, which is far closer to "milspec" than the 1/9 ROT barrels that most other builders use. They also use 4150 steel unlike Armalite, ASA, DPMS, Eagle, Hesse, Olympic and RRA. -The 6400c has a chrome chamber and barrel, and the HBARs have chrome chambers. According to Colt their buyers didn't want chrome in their accurized varmint rig for the sake of accuracy. Colt listened and people have been screaming ever since. -Colt uses a metal trigger guard, not plastic. A plastic trigger guard would last about three minutes here in New England on a 30 below zero January afternoon. -Colt uses .170 pins. Why is this such an issue? Who cares? The only aftermarket trigger company that I can think of who doesn't offer a .170 drop in match trigger kit is KAC. Colt .170 FCG parts are available everywhere-even Bushmaster sells them. -Many civilian Colt parts have the same proof marks as military and LEO weapons. They also have the same part numbers. Colt does more QC checks during assembly than anyone else. Cripes, take a look at the troubleshooting forum. When was the last time someone with a brand new Colt had a problem like an over-torqued or cockeyed barrel, canted front sight, bent gas tube, buffer impacts with the retainer, short stroking, FTF/FTE issues, a spongy safety, or bolts cracking at the cam pin? In the past I have owned a Bushmaster, an Olympic, a DPMS, and a Rock River Arms. None of those rifles were nearly as trouble free as my three Colts. The only AR that was even close was my RRA. Of the non-Colts I've owned the RRA was the only one that I ever regretted selling. Colts are too expensive: My new 6400c M4 carbine cost me $965 including the FFL tranfer fee. That's what, $150 more than a comparable Bushmaster? Many of the same people who complain about Colt being too expensive think nothing about spending an extra couple hundred bucks to run a Colt carrier/bolt assembly and "H" buffer in their non-Colt carbines to make them more reliable. In other words, they consider certain Colt parts superior, but Colt rifles as a whole are somehow vastly inferior. It doesn't add up. Colt doesn't care about their customers: If Colt didn't care about civilian sales they never would have bothered to introduce the 6400c carbine. The 6400c is the closest thing to an authentic M4 that a civilian can buy in a stock postban. Aside from the foolish brake and buttstock it's damn near perfect-and we can thank the 94 crime bill for those two items. Colt has lousy customer service: My new 6400c came with a lifetime service agreement. Who else but Olympic has anything that comes close? The only time I have ever had to deal with Colt for a warranty repair was back in 1994. One of my three-year-old A2 HBARs occasionally failed to extract. My local dealer sold me a generic extractor which made the problem worse. He boxed up the rifle and sent it to Hartford-I got it back fully repaired within seven business days. Not only did they install a new extractor for free, they sent me a spare completely free of charge. Anyway, the diatribe above is why I prefer Colt. If I'm missing something please let me know. I realize that everyone has an opinion and I certainly respect that, but I'd really like to know where Colt is dropping the ball. Like I said, I've had my share of non-Colts with varied success. Even if I don't personally care for someone elses brand preference I've never gone out of my way to bash it. That's the key difference between me and a typical Colt basher. Thanks for your time and I look forward to reading what you have to say. |
|
Well I'm not one of the two members noted but I'll give you my answer. If I ran Colt I would sell semi versions of the M16 and M4 and other models to the civilian market at competative prices. I would rollmark them with "AR15-A2" A3 or whichever model and absolutly NO PC crap like "match target" or "sporter". I would go back to the blue label darker gray color for the receivers. They would be exact copies of the full auto rifles with the only changes being the lack of the F/A fire control parts. As a side note, I would also fix the problems with Q.C. regarding the 1911's. If Colt did this the other AR makers would starve. Problem is, it will never happen. |
|
|
Sorry, but I think that the "Colt AR15" was specificly banned in the soon to die 94 crime bill. I don't believe Colt or anybody else can make a "AR15" even if they wanted to. Correct me if I am wrong. |
||
|
Quoted:
Imcoltsguy and Lumpy: I guess the question that needs to be answered then is what would you guys do differently if you ran Colt? CJan: Good note. Since Colt isn't paying me a consulting fee, and in the interest of conserving bandwidth I'll try to keep this short. Also, if I change any of your meaning by using only parts of your note, it is not intentional. Every company that falls on hard times has been the victim of poor senior management, and that's been Colt's problem for many many years. That, and the same thing that happens to successful companies which are dominant in their market--the mentally relaxed (unconscious?) state that comes with being so secure. That list of companies is very long, both in the U.S. and others. But their competitors isn't so secure and they aren't asleep. So they run a cost-conscious shop, they find out what the public wants, they work their tails off at marketing, and the build a good product. In the absence of a response from Colt, they grow to be serious competition. I said I'd keep this short, didn't I...? What to do now that they're in this condition? 1] Throw out the management that got them into this fix. They may have done that. Or they may not. They've at least made a start in the right direction. 2] Find gun people who know how to build quality guns at a good price and put them in charge. Hope they're working on that too. 3) Find out--really find out--what they've been doing wrong, and un-do it. **listen to the dealers. **listen to the customers. **listen to the employees at the operating level. That's where all the real cost and quality answers are--in the heads of the people on the shop floor. **learn how the competition has taken their market--is it product quality, distribution, value/price, service, marketing? I'm not sure how far along they are on this. 4] Would a little strategic planning be too much to ask? Decide what they want to be. Develop some direction. If it's there, I don't see it. 5] Then go do that. **build what the buyers want. **improve everything in sight, because it all needs improvement--machinery, physical plant, cost structure, etc etc. Now to your comments (edited to save space, not to change meaning): Past Colts have had a protruding sear block and a front takedown screw instead of a conventional front pushpin. Enough people complained and Colt changed it. Current civilian Colts have both a standard front pushpin and no protruding sear block. **It only took them HOW many years to listen?Why the sear block? Why be different--no one else has one. I don't buy the idea that ATF made them do this. At least I can't verify it. If they did, looks like a federal lawsuit would be in order and since there isn't one to my knowledge.... Why the large screw/pin? No one else has one. When you're gonna do something different, better have a good reason. Sony did something like this years ago--wanted to be different. Remember Betamax? Colt ships most of their rifles with a 1/7 ROT barrel, which is far closer to "milspec" than the 1/9 ROT barrels that most other builders use. **But is 1/7 the way to go? How many people really want a barrel that requires them to use heavier, more expensive, bullets? I don't remember hearing of a single person who has asked a dealer for a 1/7 rifle lately, unless they were a serious long range shooter. With everyone else selling 1/9 guns like hotcakes, why be different unless you're sure the market wants it. -The 6400c has a chrome chamber and barrel, and the HBARs have chrome chambers. **Now they do, and it's a good change. They shouldn't have stopped doing this in the first place. Poor way to save a dollar in my opinion. -Colt uses .170 pins. Why is this such an issue? **Again, why be different? What's the benefit? Why should I have to keep two different sets of spare parts for my Colts? My new 6400c M4 carbine cost me $965 including the FFL tranfer fee. That's what, $150 more than a comparable Bushmaster? **Not that I would expect Colt to be the low cost maker, but that $150 would cause many to buy the Bushmaster. Think they could they cut that to $100 more if they really tried? When was the last time someone with a brand new Colt had a problem? **That's the one bright spot in their history--consistently good AR15's. I can't always say the same about their 1911's. And I'll never forget the Python that came from the factory with the side plate not installed. And other stories I won't go into. Colt doesn't care about their customers: **They apparently do a better job now. I can tell you stories about several past years when they seemed to care very little. Colt has lousy customer service. **Better now. But try ordering parts. Your quick turnaround is the exception, not the rule, especially for that time period. Colt is finally trying. I'm pulling for them. I hope they get it together and make a comeback before their money runs out, for the sake of all of us who appreciate Colt and want them to be a strong company, and for the many Colt employees who no longer have jobs. And I am a "Colts Guy". Really. |
|
First: remember, Colt of today isn't Colt of those times. They changed owners in the late 90's.
Mark is a guy from Colt who travels around to different gun shops to show off their current product line. He's the one that told us that Colt was looking at changing the pins to mil-spec, but that they were told it would not be legal, making the gun closer to full auto. There was no lawsuit, as I don't think they wanted to sink the money into it. The 1911's they're making now are some of the best made in decades. They are much better made than a Kimber or Springfield, in parts and in finish. There have been complaints here or there, but really, most are nitpick's. Also, for the record, a Colt M4 is ~ $70 more (dealer price, at least at the time I purchased mine and my bro bough the bushy) than a Bushmaster M4a3. That price is easily taken up by the M4 handguards and the side sling mount. |
|
As far as Colt going to larger H/T pins and sear blocks are some of you just too young (or perhaps too forgetful) to remember the antigun drumbeat in the late 80s?
Don't you remember Charles Schumer SCREAMING on Capital Hill about how easy it was to turn a semi-auto AR15 into a full-auto M16? Colt detractors would say that Colt took the PC approach, bent over, and changed their design. I'd say that Colt saw the writing on the wall and did what they had to do to take that rhetoric away from the antis. And guess what? A few years later we're worse off anyway, except that the antis still can make the kitchen table machine gun argument because the cloners still use small pins...
You're kidding right? Are you a dealer? With a 1/7 ROT barrel you aren't required to use heavier bullets, so your entire premise is bogus. With a 1/7 ROT barrel you can stabilize anything, from lightweight varmint rounds to heavy OTM rounds. That's the beauty of 1/7, you're not limited AT ALL... As far as demand goes, apparently you missed these threads: AR15.com forumites BEG Bushmaster for a 1/7 ROT barrel AR15.com poll for Bushy 1/7 ROT barrel |
|
|
Is this the same Mark who answers questions on the 1911forum.com ?? I have also heard this tale and I just can't understand it. How is it that all the other AR makers can use std pin sizes and Colt can't ? The only reason I have heard is that they were using the large pins when the ban took place and they can't change back ?? is that it ? Sounds like BS to me. They changed the pivot sizes on some models after the ban, so why not the fire control parts. I would bet that Colt just doesn't want to for legal "cover your ass" reasons.
Yes they are making some great pistols now and I want one or two, but the complaints are valid. It's not a quality parts issue, it's a quality control issue. Go read the posts on 1911forum.com in the Colt section. A lot of happy people but Colt needs to QC their pistols BEFORE they are shipped. I think your "nitpick" comment is bullshit as well. If I pay $800,$900,$1000 or more for a new 1911, new series 70, WWII, WWI, gunsite etc... from Colt it better be PERFECT out of the box. I don't consider my expectations for my hard earned money "nitpicking". I would expect the same from any manufacturer, not just Colt, but Colt should be better suited to handling these issues. |
||
|
CJan: I do recall political heat as being probably one of the reasons Colt--sometime in the early 90's--went to large fire control pins. It was probably a good decision at that time, since much of Colt's income came from govt contracts and they no doubt felt threatened, but I notice nobody else changed. But since Colt is now unfortunately not the large volume AR15 maker it was then, and everyone else uses small pins, I do not understand why there hasn't been an attempt to change back to the original size. It clearly would help sales, reduce production costs, and simplify parts and service issues. If ATF is really blocking that move, it's hard to believe that some of us wouldn't know about it. Shouldn't every other maker be subject to the same restriction? As you said, the cloners still use small pins, and you can buy 3 and 4 position conversion kits all over the place. Maybe since Colt is still a military contractor that might have something to do with it but, if it is, it would help them to get the word out somehow. On the 1/7 issue: I don't want us to depart from the thread into just one or two items, but would like to respond with what I know, or think I know at least. A 1/7 will shoot anything? Not for me. I'm not a ballistic expert but have been unable to get my COLT 1/7 HBAR non-chrome-bore to group light bullets properly--with either my loads or any factory load I have tried. And that includes some loads that will go well under MOA all day long in a 1/12 barrel (as you know, the original M16/AR15 ROT for 55gr). It does well with 75 & 77 gr but nothing else. If someone has a 55 or 52 grain load that will do so, please share it with me. Demand for 1/7? I had missed those two threads. I read them. I don't see anybody wanting a 1/7 to shoot light bullets, only heavier (much more expensive) bullets. And that's a valid need. The poll shows, if I remember correctly, 69% of 226 people want one. And they seem to be serious shooters, not the average gun buyer, or the person who is limited to short range shooting. I don't see 1/7 barrels for sale in any quantity at gun shows, and those I do see just lay there, they do not sell quickly. I do see people trading 1/7 uppers for 1/9's. I don't see them for sale in gun shops very often, and dealers tell me most people don't want a 1/7 if they just want to plink or shoot in quantity (which is most AR shooters). I don't see Bushmaster (or OLY etc) rushing to produce them, and they're pretty good at reading the market. So if there's a case for a 1/7 being the barrel I would produce in quantity, I don't see it yet. A few, sure, but not a large % of production. |
||
|
Since we are on the topic of what Colt should do for marketing...
After the AWB expires #1 M4 clone. It's what all the kids want these days, give the people what they want. Folding stock, bayonet lug, 16" M4 profile barrel, M4 shielded handguards, A2 flash hider. Option of A2 or flat top receiver. #2 Reintroduce the classic SP1 rifle. Flash hider, bayonet lug, pencil 1x12 barrel, Colt grey finish. Could run a batch of 2500 with Vietnam era features like teardrop Forward Assist, small fire control components, and front pivot pin. To avoid trouble from ATF don't mill out he rear portion of the lower (as found on recent production rifles). #3 AR15 GOVT Carbine. Bring them back same as the 1994 rifles. 1x9 twist barrel. Would sell great to LEO. |
|
For what it's worth I have been reloading for years, and have had no problems shooting anything from lightweight 40gr varmint loads to heavy 77gr OTM loads. My personal blasting ammo of choice is Lake City M193, and it shoots just fine in a 1/7ROT barrel.
|
|
A note, but Colt does make a LEO M4 with 16" barrel. If the ban goes away, it doesn't matter if Colt makes commercial models, these LEO guns will be available for sale. There's no reason they couldn't be sold to anyone. I'd rather they didn't do such, but it doesn't seem to hurt the sales of Remington 700P's, or the 870's with folding stocks that say "law enforcement only" on them. No one seems to nag Remington like they do Colt either. |
|
|
Most of my shooting is at 200-300 yds or more and I can live with 2MOA at that distance but I regret to say I haven't had the same results you have. And mine isn't the first 1/7 barrel I've heard about that won't shoot light bullets accurately, but maybe I need to try a different one. I also like LC or other M193 spec loads for times when I don't want to reload. Never tried anything lighter than 52 gr since no luck with that one. But, again, it shoots 75gr and very well, so.... |
|
|
RE: Twist Rates
Dr. Gary Roberts writes: "The 1/7 is clearly the best twist rate available, as it allows use of the widest variety of bullets, including the combat proven heavy OTM’s, as well as the bonded JSP’s." "The 1/7 is more versatile as it shoots pretty much everything from 55 gr to 100 gr, while the 1/9 usually goes from 40 gr to about 69 gr. When we first got the M16A2 in the early 80's, we shot our qual's and matches with 55 gr M193 out of the 1/7 twist barrels without problems." "For agency/unit acquisition, the 1/7 twist is a better choice, as it is more versatile and will work with the best of the current commonly issued 5.56 mm ammunition types." Back to the pushpin issue: Back when I went to the Colt M16 LE Armorer's course, this very issue was brought up. ATF did put pressure on Colt to change pin sizes or face increased scrutiny, lawsuits, and possibly affect government contracts. While we can argue back and forth why Colt chose to give in to the pressure, there are real economic reasons why Colt chose this path. Why the same pressure was not applied to the smaller clone manufacturers, I don't know. Do I wish the pin sizes were standard? Yes. Does it truly matter on a personally owned weapon, given Colt's superior quality in almost every other way? Absolutely not. Best regards, Tim |
|
Thank you sir... Like you I feel that it would be nice if pin sizes were standard, but like I said earlier in this thread-even Bushmaster sells a complete set of .170 Colt FCG parts for $49.95, so availability is a non-issue. My reason for wanting it is more finanical-it's so I can build Colt stripped lowers without having to shell out extra $$$ for .170 FCG parts. Aside from that I couldn't care less since I have a healthy supply of the properly sized spare parts anyway. |
|
|
That is also the word that I got. CJan_NH, to clarify, I, and I believe Arnistador, speaking specifically of the pivot pin not the H/T pins. I do not know if pressure was brought on Colt with that issue. I do believe what I have heard from several knowledgeable people that the change in pivot pin diameter was a direct result of Colt's conversations with ATF and their definition of "readily convertable". Why no pressure was brought to bear on the cloners I do not know but I suspect that a large portion of it was Colt's place as a .mil/.gov contractor. That makes them vulnerable. Add to that Colt's (at that time) percentage of the market and their draw on (affecting how parts are made) the AR supplies and it adds up. Or, ATF knew that even if someone did manage to illegally convert one of the clone guns to full auto that it wouldn't run for long anyway and therefore it wasn't anything to be concerned about. [:\] |
|
|
I dunno, I think in relation to your Colt "milspec" is a good definition as your Colt has a better chance of passing the "milspec" testing than any other brand. Now that the upper and lower can be separated without tools it could (sht happens) pass all the tests not requiring automatic functioning.
|
|
How many other makers are proof testing their barrel or bolts? How many magnetic particle test? Mil Spec means more than one thing to more than one person, however, Colt is certainly more Mil Spec than any other I can think of. |
|
|
I agree with you 100%. It's the continued marketing bastardization of the word that makes me cringe. |
||
|
What the hell... I'll play.
The newer Colt rifles have got it all, except for std. fire control parts. Why doesn't Colt keep the name ( Match Target ) or change it to XM16A2 or something? If they did that, and changed the pins and guts, they would OWN the market. Do they have a telly number, or an E-mail address? If we confront them, they might realize that there is enough space to remodel their ARs, and enough of a demand to justify it. |
|
I would love to have the civilian sales that Colt has FOOLISHLY LOST to Bushy/Armalite/RRA!
A fucking chimpanzie could have made better business decisions! It seems they sort of got a clue when they introduced that carbine thing! |
|
I think we all agree that Colt has a better quality rifle than anyone else and if they were to decide to make the fire control/pin change (and legally able to do so) they would put a serious dent in the sales of their competitors. I know that I wouldn't even consider buying anything else. |
|
It would be nice if Colt had a sales rep that stayed on this forum like they have on 1911 forum to listen to civilian complaints/suggestions.I really don't see what the big deal is with the larger fire control parts.it's not like they're hard to find.I think I would have a problem if they still had the large front pivot pin.
|
|
I agree with you 100% Redbone. I was pleasantly surprised to see that my 6400c had a standard front pushpin. The trigger pins are a non-issue to me as well since 170 FCG parts can be purchased anywhere. |
|
|
Hold the phone... Since Colt is the master of exceptions, bear with me.
I thought Colt could not legally put std. fire control parts/pins in under the AR15A2 name. Can they legally put them in at all, esp. if they changed the name? |
|
True. They can be purchased. And since we all own them, we're saying (I think) that we like Colts and we'll buy them anyway (whether it's a non-issue to us or not). But we are here on the COLT board, right, meaning we are people who (presumably) like Colts? Do we think we would get the same "It doesn't matter" answer over on the Armalite, Bushmaster, etc boards? Something tells me those folks feel it DOES make a difference. At least lots of their owners have told me it does. Even if it didn't, since we are for the moment taking on the task of running Colt we have to ask... does the "large F/C pin" feature add an advantage to our product? Does it make Colt more competitive and more preferred over other brands? Does it make a positive cost difference in our product? I think the answer to all three questions is undeniably NO. Good comment above asking why a Colt rep doesn't drop in now and then. Even if they aren't posting, I do hope they are at least reading the board, since it's probably the largest collection of AR15 shooters anywhere. |
||
|
The biggest gripe I have with Colt, other than them not paying attention to the market, is their on again, off again QC. It seems like just when they start to put out well built firearms for us lowly civilians, whether they be AR15's or 1911's, their QC then goes down the toliet again and they start putting out poorly machined, poorly finished crap.
Maybe they just have one employee that puts out crap constantly but he has a lot of vacation time built up, which he takes in large chunks, so their QC is only horrible when he is back from livin' the high life in Branson, MO. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.