Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 67

Thread: Colt LE 6920 vs. Colt SP 6920

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeahe View Post
    The State of California says they're both evil.
    I am not going to argue the State of California’s attitude towards firearms but there is a huge difference between an LE6940 and an SP6940 and its legality in California. If you read the California Department of Justice Kasler v. Lockyer Assault Weapon List you will see the following Colt rifles are banned:

    Law Enforcement (6920)
    Match Target (all)
    * AR-15 (all)
    Sporter (all)
    *weapons banned under the Robert-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989.

    http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf

    The way the law is written (and interrupted) a weapon must be specifically listed to be banned. Many California brick and mortar gun shops, California gun show venders and even some out of state sellers saw the exclusion of the LE6940 under Law Enforcement where the 6920 is specifically listed as enough of a "loophole" to install a “Bullet Button” and a 10 round magazine and sell them to California residents. The change in the roll mark from LE6940 (Law Enforcement) to SP6940 (Sporter) appears to be enough to put the gun back in the ban category in California.
    Last edited by Beanie; 09-29-11 at 12:50.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    153
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Not for long! There are multiple CA Legal Colt AR's coming in the near future.



    C4
    The new Colt Gelding!

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    279
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post

    For me, having something marked LE only makes me feel like a Cop wannabe and I would rather not deal with that.

    C4
    This is similar to the retail versus tour issued equipment for professional sports, particularly for golf equipment. Some people pay a very high premium on equipment that were originally released for use by PGA Tour and other professional golfers. Many times, the component is pretty much the same as those available to retail consumers and other times they have prototype or other features that are meant for professionals. Some of the features that are meant for professionals can actually be detrimental to the average golfer, but for others, that performance feature may actually benefit them. A lot of it also comes down to QA/QC where the specifications are inspected much closer. Of course there are also those who want to play the tour issued equipment just to say that they play the same equipment as the guys they try to emulate. Some may say that is being a poser and others may say that is flattery.

    In the case of civilan versus MIL/LE firearms, I would think that the QA/QC and testing that often goes into proving a MIL/LE system/component works is of value to the civilians. In this case, I can't really see how a feature meant specifically for MIL/LE would be detrimental to a civilian, provided they are legal (I wouldn't mind trying out an AR15 on burst or full-auto, haha). The QA/QC and testing process isn't cheap and I would expect to pay a premium on that for service and in most cases, I actually prefer to pay that premium for higher quality. That being said, I would never tell someone what they should or shouldn't spend their hard earned money on.
    Last edited by drck1000; 09-29-11 at 19:49. Reason: Correction of "burst OR full-auto"

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    67
    Feedback Score
    0
    No differance, and here it is from the Colt Forum: http://www.coltforum.com/forums/colt...fles-colt.html

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,504
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Just look at how many folks are hunting for "Austrian Proof Marks" on their Glock 19s.

    Truthfully people will always want what they can't have or is in limited supply. I am still not 100% sold on the idea of Colt making civilian rifles to the exact same standard & QA/QC as their LE versions else they would just roll them off the same assembly line. But they are not doing that for $ reasons. I don't really care what others decide to do & I will keep to the LE versions/


  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,137
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    really People look at this wrong .they are not different.
    Uppers are built in one spot and the Lowers all the same ,will make their way to the correct Machine that Stamps the Rollmarks LE or the Sporter and then assemble them.the roll marks are the only thing that is different .


    NRA Member

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    585
    Feedback Score
    0
    It is reassuring to hear that the SP guns are essentially the same as Colt LE guns.

    As to the controversy regarding the "LE only" rollmark, somehow I doubt that the people that have such guns (I used to have one but I dropped it in a lake by mistake ) will be in a rush to get rid of them.

    To me it seems that if the state of society has gotten so dire that LEO's will be looking to confiscate guns, they'll just see a "black rifle" worth confiscating, and I doubt that a roll mark that reads "Gun Designed to save Puppies and Children" will give you a pass at that point.

    Remember, the various "assault rifle" bans have targeted makes and features, never specific roll marks.
    Formerly known as "Son of Vlad Tepes"

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    27,441
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Javelin View Post
    Just look at how many folks are hunting for "Austrian Proof Marks" on their Glock 19s.

    Truthfully people will always want what they can't have or is in limited supply. I am still not 100% sold on the idea of Colt making civilian rifles to the exact same standard & QA/QC as their LE versions else they would just roll them off the same assembly line. But they are not doing that for $ reasons. I don't really care what others decide to do & I will keep to the LE versions/

    Please re-read the e-mail I posted by Colt then if you do not believe that they are the same. As they say, straight from the horses (Colt) mount.



    C4

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    179
    Feedback Score
    0
    A "Un-carved" SP is as good as it gets. You finally have a true "Non political correct Colt rifle". Get it while you can. With Colts past history, you never know when they might decide to appease again.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    57
    Feedback Score
    0
    Fwiw...
    I was looking around the web and came across a
    Facebook page for colt ( I dont know if its their
    Official facebook page or not ) and it had a post
    Titled colt defense-roll mark change... It was posted
    On 8/5/11@ 11:38 am it goes on to announce imo
    In limited detail the change from the "le" roll mark
    To the "sp" roll mark !... Again this is just a general
    F.Y.I to anybody whose interested !

    Cervantes

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53
    Feedback Score
    0
    I have an LE6920 since the SP was out of staock where I ordered.
    I am former LE and military, and am in no way worried about the LE only markings. The odds of having the gun on my person while interacting with LE, having him notice the LE/Mil rollmark, and being ignorant of the legality of ownership would be one perfect storm of bad luck. Additionally, once I explained that it was legal, asked him to call a supervisor to check, and still was arrested/had my rifle confiscated would just add to my criminal defense and hopeful monetary settlement.
    I think the biggest chance of this happeneing would be some rural jurisdiction where you MIGHT have a greater possibility of encountereing an officer whose knowle of code is lacking and isn't informed or worried about liability issues.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0

    Colt new markings.

    Just thought I'd update this thread a little as I just picked up a new 6920 two days ago. Mine is the one with the MOE furniture and back up sight. It is marked with the Colt logo "M4 Carbine CAL 5.56mm" and the serial number. That's it nothing else.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    263
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    There are literally thousands upon thousands of LE marked colts in the hands of civilians. If some douche nozzle wants to try me on that, I'm his huckleberry - it'll be a slam dunk in court.

    I wouldn't waste two seconds of my life worrying about owning an LE marked anything.

    I've always been of the opinion though that if you well and truly think you're going to have some run ins with law enforcement, it's always best to bring your own cop. I have a lot fo friends in law enforcement, and many go shooting with me frequently.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    20,021
    Feedback Score
    80 (100%)
    Please tell me wherte this mystical jurisdiction may be located. I will promptly drive around it non-stop with said marked weapon on my backseat waiting for such an incident to occur.

    That argument has been bandied about numerous times, yet we can't seem to find any case law that supports it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiny Killer Robot View Post
    I have an LE6920 since the SP was out of staock where I ordered.
    I am former LE and military, and am in no way worried about the LE only markings. The odds of having the gun on my person while interacting with LE, having him notice the LE/Mil rollmark, and being ignorant of the legality of ownership would be one perfect storm of bad luck. Additionally, once I explained that it was legal, asked him to call a supervisor to check, and still was arrested/had my rifle confiscated would just add to my criminal defense and hopeful monetary settlement.
    I think the biggest chance of this happeneing would be some rural jurisdiction where you MIGHT have a greater possibility of encountereing an officer whose knowle of code is lacking and isn't informed or worried about liability issues.





    "A firearm should be considered a fighting weapon first. Any other use should be considered a bonus." -Me

    Click here for Semper Paratus Arms AR15 armorer schedule/locations.

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Multiple armorer certifications

    I am affiliated and work with SIONICS Weapon Systems in Tucson, AZ

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    128
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    [QUOTE=OldState;1109999]In the American legal system the burden of proof is always on law enforcement for anything.

    They could decide to harass you but they would have to hope you are ignorant of the law or unwilling to take legal action against them.


    The burden of proof is not on law enforcement. Police Officers make an arrest based on probable cause(reasonable belief). They don't give much thought on what happens in court. The DA/Prosecution needs to prove you guilty(proof beyond a reasonable doubt). Most cops aren't looking to "harass you, although this may be the end result of their ignorance.
    24 years as a cop and many ranks later (supervising cops) Grant is 100% correct. Knowing what I know I would take the Sporter M4 and not be comfortable with the LEO marking. Most Officers on my job know nothing about the black rifles and they just see evil looking weapon + LEO marking. I have been into this my whole life and had the opportunity to terminate arrests based on cops not knowing. My guess Grant has dealt/deals with a lot of LEOs and he sees what I see. I have 3 Colts with the LEO marking that look new and if anyone wants to swap you got it! Because I like the M4 roll mark better anyway... Its easy to say I will sue but I have been down that road too... good luck with that. Not that easy and Judges will throw out these law suits. Remember Judges are politically appointed. Just my thoughts, please don't misjudge me I am on your side. I always look at things impartially and try not to judge people, just do my job with compassion. But unfortunately were all not of the same mind set.
    To answer the question, I would choose the M4 for three reasons: 1) don't like the LEO restriction marking
    2) M4 roll mark nice(dont flame me please) 3) same rifle anyway.
    Last edited by lt211; 12-29-11 at 20:03. Reason: To answer the q.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere...
    Posts
    1,251
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by lt211 View Post
    Most Officers on my job know nothing about the black rifles and they just see evil looking weapon + LEO marking.
    I'm not being sarcastic here, but who cares what they see?

    If what I have is legal, it could be marked as an RPG, and it wouldn't matter what the cop thinks....

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    128
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaSierra View Post
    I'm not being sarcastic here, but who cares what they see?

    If what I have is legal, it could be marked as an RPG, and it wouldn't matter what the cop thinks....
    I agree and I'm not saying get rid of what you have. But to answer the question if I have both in front of me then why not get the one without the markings. Just because we know its legal doesn't mean your not going to get arrested.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    Please tell me wherte this mystical jurisdiction may be located. I will promptly drive around it non-stop with said marked weapon on my backseat waiting for such an incident to occur.

    That argument has been bandied about numerous times, yet we can't seem to find any case law that supports it.
    I think you read it wrong. I was agreeing with you.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53
    Feedback Score
    0
    "The burden of proof is not on law enforcement. Police Officers make an arrest based on probable cause(reasonable belief)."

    No it is not, however, they cannot arrest someone for whatever they feel like. Probable cause is when a "prudent and cautious" person has belief that a crime has been committed, NOT that something is a crime. The officer must feel that the person they are taking into custody has committed a specific criminal offense, not that 'I am sure that somehow this is against the law.' Can anyone show me any states Penal Code that says, "Civilians cannot be in possession of LE/Mil marked items."
    Manufacturers do not get to say who can own what. They do not enact law. The CAN decide if they restrict sales to LE/Mil, but bottom line if there is no law against ownership/possession, there is absolutely no grounds for arrest/confiscation.
    Any seasoned LE officer has come across a situation where he wasn't sure if a crime has been committed. If the Patrol Sgt/Duty Sgt can't answer, the prudent course of action is to take the information as a 'contact' and turn it over to be run up the chain to determine if prosecution is warranted.
    How many people here bought the Aimpoint PRO? Is anyone worried about getting arrested for that?
    Grant, I think you are a fantastic source of knowledge and 99.9% of the time I agree with what you say, but on this one I think you are off base. If people prefer not to have LE/Mil rollmarks, cool. If people LIKE them, cool. But, I do not worry a bit about having it and running afoul of the law.
    Last edited by Tiny Killer Robot; 12-29-11 at 21:53.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    27,441
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiny Killer Robot View Post
    Grant, I think you are a fantastic source of knowledge and 99.9% of the time I agree with what you say, but on this one I think you are off base. If people prefer not to have LE/Mil rollmarks, cool. If people LIKE them, cool. But, I do not worry a bit about having it and running afoul of the law.

    I just got an e-mail about someone that ran into problems with local LE concerning the LE Only roll marks on the gun. Don't think they were arrested, but they did run into a problem (burden of proof is on them).

    While I don't think "LE Only" RM's are an issue CURRENTLY, let another ban come about (from Obama and crew) and I think we might be changing our thought patterns.



    C4

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •