Colt Expanse - Not All Same

[Iraqgunz]

How is the barrel and bolt marked?

M4 above gas tube sorta visible in this pic, but clear as day in real life.

[creedal]

[nova3930]

Most of the non-Colt parts on the expanse are made by anderson. I saw this while visiting an OEM who was manufacturing fixtures and dies for anderson.

Wonder what specs they hold Anderson to....


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

[creedal]

300 rds down the pipe with no fails. just a squirt of clp. accurate.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[williejc]

I have 600 rds through an Expanse upper on a Smith lower and have only good things to say about the combination. I shoot dirt clods, stumps, and similar targets with it. I married to it in the sense I paid too much for what I have and would take a beating if I sold or traded it. I fret that I ended up with a sporting rifle and not the real deal. It appears that these rifles have changed a bit since they were introduced in the sense that the number of non Colt parts making them up has changed. I've studied them and talked with the people who make them and think that they're ok for my use. Now that the market is soft and becoming more so and now that we know that Colt is going through rough times financially, I predict that the Expanse will cease to be marketable. If it continues to exist, I predict that more non Colt parts may show up in them. I fear that they may become a substandard product.

[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.

[TMS951]

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.

Why would they put their name on an expanse? It is clearly not "service grade", unless you consider Anderson parts service grade. Why would Colt put their name on something they don't even make in their plant that is below the quality they are expected to put out? That is what makes no sense.

Your argument of Colt not wanting to tarnish their good name is void based on having already showed they are willing to tarnish it with the Expanse. They buy crap parts from other manufacturers to build these rifles, why wouldn't they use their own parts?

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.

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

These rifles do not need to be built from exclusively blem parts. When they don't have any, they can just buy Anderson garbage. What this rifle and its inconsistent parts does do is let them get rid of parts when they need. Bad batch of anodizing on the upper?, F-it send off to be put on expanses. Same for any parts, if they are no good for a "service grade weapon" send of to be put together for a hobby rifle, or "pathetic pony" as the expanse should be renamed. Previously who knows what they did with sub par parts? throw them out, auction them off? what ever it was they can now sell them.

Colts "service grade rifles" where known to have "fit and finish" that was not good for a safe queen but good fro a tool. Thats awesome for the .mil market, but in the highly competitive civilian market will get shooters to buy something else. Now that Colt has to value and cater to the civilian market with rifles like the 6960 CCU maybe they are going to observe better fit and finish to satisfy the average civilian. This would therefor allow for more parts to fall int the "blem" category and get shipped out to make pathetic ponies out of.

Lastly think of companies that have blems. I'll give you two Geissele and Noveske. They both produce high end items, they both have blems. Does this mean Geiselle and Noveske have "manufacturing problems"

[williejc]

Colt ownership and leadership have changed so many times that predicting what they will or won't do may be difficult. I have an Expanse upper and having spent an hour talking with the head guy at the Expanse facility in Texas, I was convinced that I had a good upper that would make a good sporting grade AR. Next year that may not be true. Since I bought it, paid too much, and now can't sell it without losing a lot of money, I've decided to love the upper and sing its praises. That's the psychology behind defending shit stuff that you erred in buying. I admit it. Many won't. I also shoot dirt clods and stumps.

[JC5188]

Why would they put their name on an expanse? It is clearly not "service grade", unless you consider Anderson parts service grade. Why would Colt put their name on something they don't even make in their plant that is below the quality they are expected to put out? That is what makes no sense.

Your argument of Colt not wanting to tarnish their good name is void based on having already showed they are willing to tarnish it with the Expanse. They buy crap parts from other manufacturers to build these rifles, why wouldn't they use their own parts?






These rifles do not need to be built from exclusively blem parts. When they don't have any, they can just buy Anderson garbage. What this rifle and its inconsistent parts does do is let them get rid of parts when they need. Bad batch of anodizing on the upper?, F-it send off to be put on expanses. Same for any parts, if they are no good for a "service grade weapon" send of to be put together for a hobby rifle, or "pathetic pony" as the expanse should be renamed. Previously who knows what they did with sub par parts? throw them out, auction them off? what ever it was they can now sell them.

Colts "service grade rifles" where known to have "fit and finish" that was not good for a safe queen but good fro a tool. Thats awesome for the .mil market, but in the highly competitive civilian market will get shooters to buy something else. Now that Colt has to value and cater to the civilian market with rifles like the 6960 CCU maybe they are going to observe better fit and finish to satisfy the average civilian. This would therefor allow for more parts to fall int the "blem" category and get shipped out to make pathetic ponies out of.

Lastly think of companies that have blems. I'll give you two Geissele and Noveske. They both produce high end items, they both have blems. Does this mean Geiselle and Noveske have "manufacturing problems"

If they were producing blems in such quantity as to supply a new product, then yes...that would be the very definition of a manufacturing problem.

If Colt had such a high incidence of blem parts, it would make FAR more sense to sell them as such. Just like the other manufacturers do. It costs the same to assemble a product from in-spec parts as it does to assemble with out of spec parts. Absolutely no way you put more labor into sub standard parts, unless it is to re-work into prime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TMS951]

If they were producing blems in such quantity as to supply a new product, then yes...that would be the very definition of a manufacturing problem.

If Colt had such a high incidence of blem parts, it would make FAR more sense to sell them as such. Just like the other manufacturers do. It costs the same to assemble a product from in-spec parts as it does to assemble with out of spec parts. Absolutely no way you put more labor into sub standard parts, unless it is to re-work into prime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

and thats exactly why no more Colt employee's build them into guns. The parts are sent to Texas where the pathetic pony is assembled by non Colt employee's.

and again its a place for them to dump parts, over runs even it doesn't all have to be bless even. And when they don't have parts to dump they can keep using the anderson crap. Personally I'd take a Colt blem over anderson.