Colt is Tier 1, LMT?

[rob_s]

I think Pat Rogers has said it in the past, but if the company doesn't HAVE to do the QC/QA then how do we have any assurance that they WILL? I am reminded of the Bushmaster "MP" mark on their barrels which in fact means "we test some" instead of "we test all".

[C4IGrant]

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.

In a perfect world companies that build weapons would ALWAYS use the BEST quality materials and highest levels of QC. The fact is, that most companies (outside of FN, Colt and LMT) do not have a .Mil contract. Since they do not, they generally use the cheapest parts they can find in order to save a buck. They also have VERY limited QC. HPT/MPI testing bolts and barrels is generally NEVER done as it is too expensive. This is why Pat Rogers has a book full of broken BM bolts and almost NO Colt bolts.

So IMHO, companies HAVE to have .mil contracts because if they didn't, they would generally lose interest in high QC and making sure parts follow a spec.

The only exception to this rule that I can find is BCM as they DO NOT have a .Mil contract and follow the TDP as closely as possible.



C4

[Submariner]

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!

That's why I asked. I appreciate your candor. Recall you once told me that, as good as LaRue rails are, there was no good reason to sell my KAC FF just to buy LaRue.

I was unaware of #1 and #3. BIG upcheck here.

On #5, at least quality Colt parts spilled over into the civilian market from '98-'01 when I did most of my upper parts buying, regardless of company policies). No one else came close back then. Then came 911 and YTM (You The Man; remember them?) couldn't get Colt parts. Others, notably BCM and a couple others, have stepped in to fill the gap. I'm shooting those uppers these days, not buying. Yet...

[C4IGrant]

That's why I asked. I appreciate your candor. Recall you once told me that, as good as LaRue rails are, there was no good reason to sell my KAC FF just to buy LaRue.

I was unaware of #1 and #3. BIG upcheck here.

On #5, at least quality Colt parts spilled over into the civilian market from '98-'01 when I did most of my upper parts buying, regardless of company policies). No one else came close back then. Then came 911 and YTM (You The Man; remember them?) couldn't get Colt parts. Others, notably BCM and a couple others, have stepped in to fill the gap. I'm shooting those uppers these days, not buying. Yet...

KAC rails were the standard for MANY years and still put out a high quality rail, but are on the high price side. While I feel the LT rails are better (lighter, anti-rotation key, cheaper) your KAC rails were already paid for.




C4

[VA_Dinger]

I have Colt and LMT lowers, and uppers.

I consider LMT a tier1 manufacturer -- I used a LMT 10.5 on a Colt M4A1 lower with no issues

BTW my LMT 10.5 was parked under the FSB and had taper pins...

I think it is hard to generalize as both LMT and (most notably) Colt have generations that charge like the blowing wind.

I would have to agree 100%.

Every single one of my LMT carbines have run perfectly from day one. Nobody but a fool talks crap about Colt, but how much better can you get than 100% reliable?

FYI- I could not possibly care less if my carbine has taper pins or park under the FSB. Most of that talk reminds me of Internet noise.

[S-1]

I would have to agree 100%.

Every single one of my LMT carbines have run perfectly from day one. Nobody but a fool talks crap about Colt, but how much better can you get than 100% reliable?

FYI- I could not possibly care less if my carbine has taper pins or park under the FSB. Most of that talk reminds me of Internet noise.

I also agree that Colt and LMT are equals in quality.

The only people that talk about the taper pins or LMT's not being parked under the FSB are Colt Freaks/Geeks.

[TigerStripe]

I would buy BCM over a Colt, no question. The uppers are at least equal in quality, and Paul's customer service is just a tad better than Colt's. The only downside is BCM's not being available for purchase.


TS

[f.2]

_____

[RENEA]

LMT is good to go.

[kbi]

After picking up my LMT Defender yesterday and looking it over they are now my #1 brand .