Colt Expanse - Not All Same

[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.

[creedal]

Hmm. Didn't realize this was the subject of great controversy. My simple observation is that Colt is putting out Expanse rifles with a range of different components. Interestingly, all the ones at the biggest non-chain LGS in my area have M4/T marked uppers, and all the ones acrosd town at another LGS do not.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[RHINOWSO]

Is your name PT McCain?

[Lincoln7]

The Kaboom thread while rich in images is weak on conclusions. Thread suggests the ammo and more likely the user is the cause.

I've been reading the Kaboom thread. What could have made that user error? I'm genuinely asking.

Is your name PT McCain?

Ha!!

[mbinky]

I'm starting to find parts mismatching on Colt's normal. I have an 6940 which has a Colt/Rogers stock and a Matech rear BUIS. It should have neither.

This is exactly how the 6940 I bought 5 years ago came. Colt used the Matech before they switched to the Mbus. The Rogers stock only came on Colt's for maybe a year? My 6720 came with both of these items also.

[masenomics]

The expanse I got last year had all the same parts that you have described, and when I compared it to my 6920 the only obvious differences were in the barrel and the lower parts kit used in the lower receiver.

[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

[nova3930]

I bought a couple back pre election to stick back in the safe for my boys. Got them for a little over $550 OTD. Haven't done more than a quick function test but there aren't any obvious issues.

added the fa and dust cover plus a couple ALG triggers I had laying around and have just a hair over 1200 in them combined. Not sure I'd trust my life to them but a decent value for "my first AR" I think.

Nate
NAAH Tool Works
Naahtoolworks.com
Naahtoolworks@gmail.com

[556BlackRifle]

This is exactly how the 6940 I bought 5 years ago came. Colt used the Matech before they switched to the Mbus. The Rogers stock only came on Colt's for maybe a year? My 6720 came with both of these items also.

Spot on. Perhaps Colt had some NOS parts that they needed to be cleared out of inventory and sold them at a good price to the third party manufacturer.

[creedal]

Yeah, I didn't buy one as a first AR, but as my most recent. Have owned and assembled a bunch, and have had the good fortune to see them made largely from scratch at nearby Barnes Precision.

I would not pay even $600 for the Expanses I have seen with non-Colt lowers and uppers. But this one really is hard to tell from a 6920 - except for the easily swapped bits and the barrel. But I am ok with a 4150 unlined barrel.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk