Colt, Sig, and S&W AR Rifles

[Magic_Salad0892]

Yeah, I say that to myself every time I shoot mine. 2,000+ rounds through my M400 and no problems. Just awful!

Ever shoot the SIG 55X clone chambered in 7.62x39mm?

[Dynasty]

Thanks for the input everyone. I'm leaning towards the Colt. It seems everyone praises the Colt for good reason.

I'm going to my local gun shop to check out a few 6920 models soon.

[svtpwnz]

IMHO, I would go with a BCM blem lower, BCM BCG, BCM upper and assemble the two to have a top notch rifle for less than a grand from Grant.

[lwilcox28]

IMHO, I would go with a BCM blem lower, BCM BCG, BCM upper and assemble the two to have a top notch rifle for less than a grand from Grant.

Go with Grant. I haven't bought a gun from him, but have picked up an Aim point and some other parts. Grant has good pricing great service and is a sponsor of the board.

[ST911]

On the topic of the Sig M400, I have one to use and abuse and will be reporting results. So far, assembly has exceeded expectations. Stay tuned.

[Slobo]

Ever shoot the SIG 55X clone chambered in 7.62x39mm?

Same manufacturer but very different animal. Not a one for one comparo.

[Tzook]

I just checked out Sig's gun at WalMart yesterday. Looks decent, has MOE furniture. Doesn't have an MP tested bolt, nor does it have an H buffer.

[luckybaer]

I own two Colts (LE6920, LE6920SOCOM) and a Sig M400.

I wish that I had purchased a 3rd Colt instead of the Sig. The Sig isn't a bad weapon, I just like my Colts better.

Here are some differences I found:

First, the Colts' BCG is the full auto type and the Sig's is semi. Also, the material of the carrier seems to be nicer on the two Colts. The Sig's isn't finished as nicely as the Colts'.

Second, I replaced the pistol grips on all three weapons, and the bolt used to fasten the Sig's pistol grip to the lower receiver was thinner and less "rugged" feeling compared to the ones used by te Colts.

Third, the Sig used an carbine buffer, not an H or H2 buffer. My LE6920 used an H and the SOCOM used an H2. Not a big deal, but I wanted to point out some of the differences.

Fourth, the Sig has an ambidextrous mag release, while the Colts do not.

Fifth, the Sig has quick release connectors built in on the lower receiver, while the Colts do not.

Sixth, the front sling attachment on the Sig hangs to the 6 o'clock position, while the one on the Colts point to 9 o'clock. I thought that was not well-thought out on Sig's part, since it wouldn't be that great to use a sling run through their front attachment and try to attach it to one of their rear integrated attachment points.

The fit and finish of the Sig were fine. The staking of the bolt was OK, although it didn't look quite as good as the Colts'.

I haven't beaten my rifles up, so I don't know how the Sig would stand up to any rough use. For just a trip to the range, and shooting targets, the Sig has worked fine. It is a good first AR for my wife and son, and when they prove they are responsible about maintenance and knowledgeable about troubleshooting, I'll get them something like a Colt.

[Rowland_P]

I posted a comparison of the Sig M400 and the LE6920 some time ago. Here it is:

Both have an F marked front sight base.

Both have M4 feed ramps cut before anodizing.

Both have chromed chamber and bores.

Both have equal staking on the gas key and castle nut.

Colt has an M16 bolt carrier.
Sig has an enhanced AR15 bolt carrier.

Colt bolt is MP marked.
Sig bolt is not MP marked although Sig states their supplier MP tests all bolts, whether they are marked or not. *

Colt comes with an H buffer.
Sig comes with a standard carbine buffer.

Colt barrel is MP marked.
Sig barrel is not MP marked and Sig could not state if their barrel is MP tested. *

Colt barrel is HP tested.
Sig states all of their barrels are HP tested, whether or not marked. *



Colt barrel is button rifled.
Sig states their M400 barrel is cold hammer forged chrome moly vanadium meeting mil-spec. *

Colt has a standard mag release.
Sig has an ambi mag release.

Sig has a upper/lower tightening device in the lower, the Colt does not.

Sig has built-in sling point attachments in the lower, the Colt does not.

Sig has an extractor support in the barrel extension, Colt does not.

Sig has 6-position mil-spec diameter buffer tube, Colt has 4-position mil-spec tube.

Both have equally bad single stage triggers.

Out of the box, the Sig had no blemishes or marks and was cosmetically perfect, if that is important to you. The Colt had various nicks and dings from careless assembly, most notably around the trigger guard where the rear pin was installed, but also on the delta ring and on various spots on the upper receiver.

The Sig upper/lower fit is tight. There is no play whatsoever - either in the vertical or horizontal. The pins can be pushed out with your fingers. There is slop in the Colt that can be fixed substantially with an Accuwedge.

Both consistently eject to the 3:45 position with everything from cheap PMC Bronze and UMC ammo to NATO M193 and M855.

I can discern no practical difference in accuracy.

Both have been 100% reliable when using quality ammo.

Sig has a lifetime warranty, Colt one year.

*I spoke to Sig Sauer directly to determine this information. With patience, and insisting on speaking to folks who can answer these questions with authority, they will speak to you about the parts used on their guns – although they will not tell you who makes their components.

I've owned excellent guns from both companies, and have seen crap come from both, too. I would characterize the M400 as a good offering that seems to be put together well. I prize both my Sig and my Colt and at this point have no real preference for either one.


Here is a comparison of the gas key staking...

[luckybaer]

Nice comparison, Rowland!

My Sig was about $165 less than my LE6920. From my observations, that price spread seemed pretty fair.