Colt is Tier 1, LMT?

[AR-15A3]

My LMT is a 6-position tube.

I stand corrected, this year's models are 6-position, I was talking about my 2005 model LMT which are only 5-position.

I also have seen new models with factory ambi selectors.

[rob_s]

I believe Colt is now shipping AR's with a 6 position receiver extension.



C4

I'll be interested to see if the new 6933s have the 6 position.

[Harv]

Well.. I have a BCM upper and a LMT lower... So I figure it's a Tier 1 rifle....

I'll let you know after about 5K rds......

[Diz]

This distinction of what is considered tier one rifles (and parts) is about to be radically changed, IMHO. Colt has been up there for a long time, but there is a new generation of manufactuers, BCM, LMT, and CMT, to name a few, that are now making truly mil-spec parts that I believe will turn out to be just as good if not better than Colt.
Granted the jury is still out, but after a few million rounds in the coming years to prove it, I believe it will become apparent that you can build a tier one rifle with non-Colt parts. I will freely admit that I am no fan of Colt's, and this may bias my opinion, but I believe the time is coming when you can have a truly tier one rifle without the prancing pony.
The question in my mind is, do you only consider it tier one if it has been accepted as mil-spec by gov't contract, or can you use the mil-spec as an objective standard to build your own rifle to? For example, BCM may not have a gov't contract (yet!), but if their QA/QC is just as stringent, isn't it truly mil-spec in every way but the defense contract stamp?

[C4IGrant]

This distinction of what is considered tier one rifles (and parts) is about to be radically changed, IMHO. Colt has been up there for a long time, but there is a new generation of manufactuers, BCM, LMT, and CMT, to name a few, that are now making truly mil-spec parts that I believe will turn out to be just as good if not better than Colt.
Granted the jury is still out, but after a few million rounds in the coming years to prove it, I believe it will become apparent that you can build a tier one rifle with non-Colt parts. I will freely admit that I am no fan of Colt's, and this may bias my opinion, but I believe the time is coming when you can have a truly tier one rifle without the prancing pony.
The question in my mind is, do you only consider it tier one if it has been accepted as mil-spec by gov't contract, or can you use the mil-spec as an objective standard to build your own rifle to? For example, BCM may not have a gov't contract (yet!), but if their QA/QC is just as stringent, isn't it truly mil-spec in every way but the defense contract stamp?

I agree (to a point). LMT and BCM put out HIGH quality products. The simple fact remains, that if you do not have the TDP to QC your receivers, barrels, lowers, etc, etc against then you really are not a tier 1 manufacturer.

The Military channel has been running this show called GI Factory (I think that is the name) and one of the places they go to is FN. They show how each part is tested for exactness against the TDP (with lasers and some other automated tools that measure every cut, hole and depth). Then the Govt. comes in and audits the logs that come off the QC machines. So unless you go through these rigors, you are not a Tier 1 manufacturer.

With that being said, I would take a BCM over a Colt any day of the week as I know the amount work that Paul puts into each and every upper.



C4

[Submariner]

With that being said, I would take a BCM over a Colt any day of the week as I know the amount work that Paul puts into each and every upper.
C4

If Colt were to cost less than BCM, would you still buy it instead of Colt?

[C4IGrant]

If Colt were to cost less than BCM, would you still buy it instead of Colt?

If you pretended that Colt would be cheaper than BCM, then you have to go to into deeper thought as to why one would buy a BCM. Here would be my reasons for going with a BCM over a Colt (even if Colt was cheaper):

1. Function testing (BCM tests with MUTLIPLE different ammo types to make sure the weapon runs at all pressure levels).
2. MPI exit criteria (BCM does not accept any flaws)
3. Accuracy requirement (BCM does not accept 4 MOA accuracy which is the acceptable .Mil accuracy level).
4. Like to see a small business do well.
5. BCM is in favor of Civilians owning their weapons!



C4

[Diz]

For me, yes. Cost can be a factor but for me in this case, it isn't.
I am not trying to troll here. There are many fans of Colt. I am simply not one of them. We can simply leave it at that, and keep this thread from becoming a political diatribe.
It becomes a question of whether you believe a weapon can truly be considered tier one without gov't contract approval. Taking nothing away from FN and their gov't overseers, their process sounds truly impressive, but is this absolutely necessary? Coming from an areospace background, as an airframe fabricator, for GD, Martin Marietta, and Lockheed-Martin, I have seen the layers of gov't beaucracy that are necessary to comply with mil-specs and gov't contracts. We are all familiar with the processes that create the gold-plated parts and hundred-dollar toilet seats so I won't be-labor the point. However, I feel it's necessary to point out that just because a part is built to mil-specs for a gov't contract does not mean it is inherently superior to a non mil-spec part. It may be the case, or it might just be that one part has "papers" and the other does not.
There have been interesting discussions concerning mean time between failures and adjusting maintenance intervals to more than compensate for this. This seems to be a more viable approach to the subject, rather than relying on who the current gov't contractor is.

[rob_s]

"is it absolutely necessary" is not an issue for me. An AR15 isn't necessary at all for me, neither is a 1911, but then neither is a 400 horsepower car, but I own all of them. When I buy I like to have what I consider to be the best. In my opinion, Colt IS the best.

[Diz]

I don't mean the necessity of ownership or use (although that certainly is an issue with the Colt upper management), I mean the QA/QC layers of gov't beaucracy.
Each to his own.