Colt Expanse - Not All Same

[creedal]

I picked up an Expanse this week, and it is not like the others I have seen. $599 and this one has C marked upper with T marked rail and M4 marks above gas rod. Has chromed chamber, greyish colored S 4 marked barrel extension. Properly staked key and MP marked bolt. C marked sear and Colt low mass hammer. C marked magazine catch. F height front post. C marked barrel with P marking. Mil spec 4 position buffer tube.

I added old double shielded M4 guards, a Fiberlite "N" marked stock, and a Yankee Hill rear flip up, and a heavy Spikes buffer from my parts bin.

Feeling pretty good to go.



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I forgot that I also added forward assist and bolt cover.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[RHINOWSO]

It's a bargain line made for Colt by someone else.

Nothing to get really excited about, IMO. Just another <$600 AR.

[TMS951]

I would think it's safe to assume any Colt marked parts other than the lower on an expanse are reject parts from real colts.

Hell I bet the lowers used for the expanse are all blems

[Rifleman_04]

I might check the headspace on it before the first range outing and read the expanse kaboom thread in the technical section.

[26 Inf]

I would think it's safe to assume any Colt marked parts other than the lower on an expanse are reject parts from real colts.

Hell I bet the lowers used for the expanse are all blems

Do you think? So, why would a company want to put reject parts in a product that, regardless of who actually made it, wears their corporate name, as in Colt Expanse.

Think it through a little more, many believe that Colt is the go to for good service grade rifles. If you think they would put reject parts on a rifle bearing their name, should you hold them in such high esteem?

I'm not a Colt fanboy, and I'm not trying to scold, but it makes no sense that Colt would do that, none at all.

[Kdubya]

Do you think? So, why would a company want to put reject parts in a product that, regardless of who actually made it, wears their corporate name, as in Colt Expanse.

Think it through a little more, many believe that Colt is the go to for good service grade rifles. If you think they would put reject parts on a rifle bearing their name, should you hold them in such high esteem?

I'm not a Colt fanboy, and I'm not trying to scold, but it makes no sense that Colt would do that, none at all.

That would present quite the quandary, right? In addition to your points, the "reject" theory opens the door for all kinds of less than flattering inferences.



^^^This captures one such inference. How poor would Colt's manufacturing have to be if they were able to produce an entire line from rejected parts? Some might say, "Well, they have an abundance of rejects only because their quality standards are so high." That almost sounds reasonable and admirable. But, if the components they're producing are rejected that frequently by their own QC, they've got a manufacturing problem.

One more problematic inference? If Expanse rifles are essentially built from rejected 6xxx series components, couldn't we then assume something like the 6920 is built from rejected Military components? Thus, that mil-spec AR might not actually be so mil-spec.

Now, before anyone goes crazy, I'm not claiming any of the above is true. Like 26 Inf, I just found that the "reject" assertion could prove problematic for the Colt quality diehards.

[OH58D]

I never understood why the Colt Marketing folks came up with the word "Expanse" to describe a stripped down civilian version rifle. An Expanse is a wide open area. Maybe it sounds better than a Colt Void? That's why I'm not in marketing. To accurately describe it would be something more like the Colt Lite, but then it wouldn't have that macho attraction a real Colt has. Real men don't like Lite anything. Maybe Expanse, to the Colt marketing gurus, generates a feeling of a new and open land, waiting to be built on. Just like the rifle; it's new for the noob, something to start with and grow, filling that Expanse with experience and future purchases. Kind of like your first car...it's a beater, but you learn with it.

[leoAR]

My le6940 was apparently an early version with the restricted roll marks on the right side of the magwell. It came with the standard Colt carbine stock and a Matech BUIS.

[JC5188]

Do you think? So, why would a company want to put reject parts in a product that, regardless of who actually made it, wears their corporate name, as in Colt Expanse.

Think it through a little more, many believe that Colt is the go to for good service grade rifles. If you think they would put reject parts on a rifle bearing their name, should you hold them in such high esteem?

I'm not a Colt fanboy, and I'm not trying to scold, but it makes no sense that Colt would do that, none at all.

Agreed...and beyond that, one must assume that Colt has and plans to continue to produce enough "blems" or out of spec parts to then launch an entirely new product line.

The blem argument is horseshit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gatorgrizz27]

Do you think? So, why would a company want to put reject parts in a product that, regardless of who actually made it, wears their corporate name, as in Colt Expanse.

Think it through a little more, many believe that Colt is the go to for good service grade rifles. If you think they would put reject parts on a rifle bearing their name, should you hold them in such high esteem?

I'm not a Colt fanboy, and I'm not trying to scold, but it makes no sense that Colt would do that, none at all.

There are LOTS of companies screwing consumers by using their previously reputable names to make a buck. Craftsman, Remington, Levi's, Lacrosse, Xtratuf, the list goes on and on. Colt has always been focused on MIL/LEO sales, if they can dump their reject products onto mall ninjas who believe in their reputation, make some extra money, and still uphold their .gov contracts, why wouldn't they? Brand integrity isn't a real thing anymore, unfortunately. Everyone wants it cheaper.