View Full Version : Colt LE6940P!
Just got a couple in!
Pics for your viewing pleasure!
C4
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940PA.jpg
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940PB.jpg
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940P_RM.jpg
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940P_BCG.jpg
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940P_BCG1.jpg
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940P_FSB1.jpg
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940P_FSB.jpg
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940P_Piston1.jpg
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940P_Piston.jpg
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940P_OR.jpg
dirt_diver
03-13-12, 16:34
Looks good!
Thanks for the pics.
Looks cool, you didn't get any of the DI 6940's or 6920's in yet did you? been waiting for you to get them in stock again and the cash is burning a hole in my pocket:D
just curious, but what is the price point for the piston 6940P?
I'm a complete piston gun noob. Don't the screws need to be staked on the part that looks like the gas key on a normal BCG?
Cagemonkey
03-13-12, 18:24
Looks nice. Noticed no staking on bolt carrier key and some type of screw on the upper by the cam pin bulge. I assume this screw holds a steel insert to reduce cam pin wear/drag in the upper. Do you have any plans on putting one of these through its paces and doing a T&E? So far, I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping Colt had something up its sleeve with its piston rifle that was a little less ordinary than the rest. What's your view so far?
Looks cool, you didn't get any of the DI 6940's or 6920's in yet did you? been waiting for you to get them in stock again and the cash is burning a hole in my pocket:D
just curious, but what is the price point for the piston 6940P?
No on any other Colt's.
Don't know what we are going to sell these for yet.
C4
I'm a complete piston gun noob. Don't the screws need to be staked on the part that looks like the gas key on a normal BCG?
Yes on a normal gas key, not on this one. The reason is because the gas key is so hard that you cannot do it.
C4
FSB setup wasn't as well thought out as simply using more rail.
Looks nice. Noticed no staking on bolt carrier key and some type of screw on the upper by the cam pin bulge. I assume this screw holds a steel insert to reduce cam pin wear/drag in the upper. Do you have any plans on putting one of these through its paces and doing a T&E? So far, I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping Colt had something up its sleeve with its piston rifle that was a little less ordinary than the rest. What's your view so far?
Correct on the screw.
I am not a piston guru or even a fan, but this is the best piston setup I have seen to date.
What I really like is that they use a standard bolt and bolt carrier. So if something breaks, you can basically go get any any BCG and use it (just need to install the gas key).
Colt uses an H2 buffer (smart) and the piston system can easily be removed with no tools.
I even like the roll mark on the lower.
C4
FSB setup wasn't as well thought out as simply using more rail.
This gun is just a 6940 with a piston in it. So that is why they used that FSB.
C4
Cagemonkey
03-13-12, 19:03
Correct on the screw.
I am not a piston guru or even a fan, but this is the best piston setup I have seen to date.
What I really like is that they use a standard bolt and bolt carrier. So if something breaks, you can basically go get any any BCG and use it (just need to install the gas key).
Colt uses an H2 buffer (smart) and the piston system can easily be removed with no tools.
I even like the roll mark on the lower.
C4Thanks for the input. Only time will tell how it measures up.
Thanks for the input. Only time will tell how it measures up.
I actually think we already know. A version of this gun as already gone through some .Mil testing and did very well. In fact, I believe it held its own against the 416.
C4
I'm not a piston expert by any means, but I was under the impression a piston ARs greatest nemesis was bolt carrier tilt. Did Colt take any steps to prevent this?
I'm not a piston expert by any means, but I was under the impression a piston ARs greatest nemesis was bolt carrier tilt. Did Colt take any steps to prevent this?
I am pretty sure they did. Will check it out tomorrow and advise.
Ok, I checked. There are rails on the bottom of the carrier.
C4
I hope they did, if the price point is right I'd pick one up as my first piston offering when they hit the market. I have a 6920 and I love it.
If I were to go piston I would buy this carbine. My only question: other piston systems use a spring in the bolt carrier, does the Colt use this design?
If I were to go piston I would buy this carbine. My only question: other piston systems use a spring in the bolt carrier, does the Colt use this design?
Nope.
C4
Wow, I really want one!! Now I have to pull money from my new SBR hobby. Thanks a lot, Grant!
Cagemonkey
03-13-12, 19:30
I actually think we already know. A version of this gun as already gone through some .Mil testing and did very well. In fact, I believe it held its own against the 416.
C4Cool. Would love to see a Colt beat the vaunted HK416.
Cool. Would love to see a Colt beat the vaunted HK416.
Dang! Looks like I need to start setting aside some more funds!
:D
Yes on a normal gas key, not on this one. The reason is because the gas key is so hard that you cannot do it.
C4 Makes complete sense since it appears the piston pushes against that piece. Thanks for the education.
Wow...simply wow. You guys are amazing! You tear apart every other Piston system on the planet, but since it's colt it seems like we have a small band wagon jumping ship "oh it's not that bad, I think it will pan out ok" WTF!
I'm not mad it's just funny to me :) matter of fact I have always liked the piston system idea...the DI has been perfected of 40 years. And now we'll spend the next 40 perfecting the piston platform Stoner.
On the flip...I really do like it. And knowing Colt, I'll bet the price point isn't ignorantly high!
Good luck keeping em' on the shelf Grant!
Thanks for the post Grant. Is this CA legal?
BTW Grant, I got my VCAS, thanks.
Ray
Looks nice... Grant what would it take to make this gun NJ legal, pinned stock, and pinned comp instead of FH, etc? If the gun itself and these mods aren't too much I might be in the market for one...
Ken
OK, I'll bite: why does the bolt have gas rings if its not actually using the regular gas system?
Though I suppose they could assist in keeping bolt alignment, otherwise they are just mechanical drag.
Wow...simply wow. You guys are amazing! You tear apart every other Piston system on the planet, but since it's colt it seems like we have a small band wagon jumping ship "oh it's not that bad, I think it will pan out ok" WTF!
I'm not mad it's just funny to me :) matter of fact I have always liked the piston system idea...the DI has been perfected of 40 years. And now we'll spend the next 40 perfecting the piston platform Stoner.
On the flip...I really do like it. And knowing Colt, I'll bet the price point isn't ignorantly high!
Good luck keeping em' on the shelf Grant!
Maybe you're right, perhaps there is an element of Colt fanboyishness going on here. But in defense of that, I can name about 12 different companies that produce piston ARs. The majority have been producing rifles for less than a decade. If there is going to be any company I would trust to develop an acceptable piston AR it would have to be Colt. And that isn't just me, I would think most who use their carbines would feel the same way.
But that isn't to say the Colt design isn't above a certain degree of scrutiny. That's why there are being asked a lot of questions about the design of the operating system. For example, other piston designs have adopted a one piece carrier but the 6940P uses the standard carrier, why? I would assume they have a logical reason for it, but maybe not, maybe it was just a cost saving measure to insure a higher degree of parts commonality.
Regardless, it's a Colt.
sinlessorrow
03-13-12, 23:26
Dang! Looks like I need to start setting aside some more funds!
:D
last rumor i heard the new ICC was down to the HK416, Colt 6940P.
once the winner is picked it will go up against the improved M4.
the 6940P def looks like one of the best iterations of a Piston AR
MikeCLeonard
03-14-12, 00:13
Yes on a normal gas key, not on this one. The reason is because the gas key is so hard that you cannot do it.
I understand that it's preferable to have a very hardened gas key if it's going to be whacked by an op-rod repeatedly...but I don't see how hardness will decrease the probability of the gas key coming lose? Won't the gas-key on the piston gun take more of beating than the gas key from a DI carbine? Just seems to me like it would be MORE important for this rifle to have a staked gas key...that, or a one-piece carrier.
As for the screw in the upper receiver to prevent cam-pin wear...I know that it happens a bit more on piston uppers than DI uppers...but are there any associated problems with cam-pin wear? I've never heard of that causing operational issues in an way...for any rifle.
One more questions...and I apologize if it's been stated already, but does this Colt have an adjustable gas setting for suppressed shooting?
Thanks for the pics and info Grant!
I would be interested in checking one out. My major gripe is that damn rail.
Yes on a normal gas key, not on this one. The reason is because the gas key is so hard that you cannot do it.
C4
That explains why I had such a hard time trying to stake my old LWRC carrier key lol.:suicide2:
justin_247
03-14-12, 04:07
Honestly, this reminds me of the old-school Adams Arms piston conversion kit.
Looks like Colt went cheap with the carrier.
... and what's up with that barrel profile? Why does it need an M203 notch if you can't remove the bottom rail to install that style of M203 mount?
From the pix it looks like the bottom section can be removed independantly.
I'm too old to start fooling with new fangled doo-dads. I'll stick with my 6920.
:big_boss:
Wow...simply wow. You guys are amazing! You tear apart every other Piston system on the planet, but since it's colt it seems like we have a small band wagon jumping ship "oh it's not that bad, I think it will pan out ok" WTF!
I'm not mad it's just funny to me :) matter of fact I have always liked the piston system idea...the DI has been perfected of 40 years. And now we'll spend the next 40 perfecting the piston platform Stoner.
On the flip...I really do like it. And knowing Colt, I'll bet the price point isn't ignorantly high!
Good luck keeping em' on the shelf Grant!
For me, I will take a DI AR over a Piston AR. With that said, Colt has a lot of knowledge on building combat grade weapons and if anyone can get a piston AR to run well, it will be them.
C4
Thanks for the post Grant. Is this CA legal?
BTW Grant, I got my VCAS, thanks.
Ray
I would assume so as it has a "P" after the 6940. So you would just need a BB & 10rd mags and be GTG.
C4
I understand that it's preferable to have a very hardened gas key if it's going to be whacked by an op-rod repeatedly...but I don't see how hardness will decrease the probability of the gas key coming lose? Won't the gas-key on the piston gun take more of beating than the gas key from a DI carbine? Just seems to me like it would be MORE important for this rifle to have a staked gas key...that, or a one-piece carrier.
As for the screw in the upper receiver to prevent cam-pin wear...I know that it happens a bit more on piston uppers than DI uppers...but are there any associated problems with cam-pin wear? I've never heard of that causing operational issues in an way...for any rifle.
One more questions...and I apologize if it's been stated already, but does this Colt have an adjustable gas setting for suppressed shooting?
Thanks for the pics and info Grant!
I do not argue your POV at all, but I can see that there is some kind of adhesive here and my guess is that it isn't going any where without a blow torch.
No on the adjustable gas setting, but I believe they did it on the one they submitted to the .Mil testing.
C4
From the pix it looks like the bottom section can be removed independantly.
Correct.
C4
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940P_RM.jpg
What is the purpose of what appears to be a button head screw in the locking pocket for the cam pin?
Wave off... I just saw your response above to the same question.
I couldn't agree more...Like it or not I think the piston is going to continue to evolve till the mil accepts one and makes a mil-spec standard for its materials, design, manufacturing, etc. I think some day probably 40 years down the road :) it will be completely perfected just like the DI system.
Until that point, I look forward to the continued pissing matches on here regarding the two systems.
BTW, any idea what the price will be? I'm looking to step into a tier platform...and I'd like to buy one from you :)
I couldn't agree more...Like it or not I think the piston is going to continue to evolve till the mil accepts one and makes a mil-spec standard for its materials, design, manufacturing, etc. I think some day probably 40 years down the road :) it will be completely perfected just like the DI system.
Until that point, I look forward to the continued pissing matches on here regarding the two systems.
BTW, any idea what the price will be? I'm looking to step into a tier platform...and I'd like to buy one from you :)
We are selling them for $1799.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=6940P
C4
Any CA legal ones Grant?
To my knowledge, they are not making a dedicated CA Legal one, but I think this one would fly is you installed a BB and 10rd mags.
C4
To my knowledge, they are not making a dedicated CA Legal one, but I think this one would fly is you installed a BB and 10rd mags.
C4
yes it will, the neither the lower nor the model number are banned by name.
Does the STD 6940 have that locking tab on the front sight?
For me, it would be nice if the 3, 6, and 9 o'clock part of the rail extended out a bit like the C4 cutout rails.
justin_247
03-14-12, 11:39
Correct.
C4
Interesting.
Does the STD 6940 have that locking tab on the front sight?
For me, it would be nice if the 3, 6, and 9 o'clock part of the rail extended out a bit like the C4 cutout rails.
I have not seen a new production 6940 in a while so I do not know for certain, but my guess is that this change will be on all of them.
C4
Nice rifle, Grant.
Don't forget to let me know when you get some 6920's in.
love this rifle. my only experience with a piston was the sig556. and needless to say i only owned that rifle for 5 months bought it for 1800 sold it for 1000 because it was that big of a pile. but this has me wanting another
sinlessorrow
03-15-12, 14:44
love this rifle. my only experience with a piston was the sig556. and needless to say i only owned that rifle for 5 months bought it for 1800 sold it for 1000 because it was that big of a pile. but this has me wanting another
Any pictures of that screw and the inside of the upper?
Grant,
What is the weight of it and a comparable 6920?
Also, do they seem to balance the same? How does it feel?
Can't wait to get my hands on that BCM lower. Thanks again for all your help.
Alex
There going to go through all this again and again they'll stick to DI. The problem I have with all the piston AR offerings as a civilian is the lack of user changeable rails on the market currently.
sinlessorrow
03-16-12, 00:04
There going to go through all this again and again they'll stick to DI. The problem I have with all the piston AR offerings as a civilian is the lack of user changeable rails on the market currently.
of course they will, there is nothing significantly better than the M4 currently available.
at best they are a slight improvement and the M4 can just be upgraded through a PiP.
sadly until a piston becomes the standard we wont be seeing different rails.
^^^Agreed
Grant do you know why they put gas rings in the bolt?
I am pretty sure they did. Will check it out tomorrow and advise.
Ok, I checked. There are rails on the bottom of the carrier.
C4
Could you post a picture of the bottom of the carrier, I would like to see the added rails on the bottom. Thanks
justin_247
03-16-12, 08:17
Yes, please post pictures of the rails, and the inside of the upper receiver compared to a standard upper.
If they have rails inside, that should fix the carrier tilt problem.
I don't know if it is possible or not but if Colt wants to keep the FSP could they make a rail that would wrap around and extend out another 2 to 3 inches? The rail is just too short!
Also it would be nice if they would offer a version without the notch on the barrel for a grenade launcher.
Grant,
What is the weight of it and a comparable 6920?
Also, do they seem to balance the same? How does it feel?
Can't wait to get my hands on that BCM lower. Thanks again for all your help.
Alex
It is of course heavier than a 6920, but comparing it to the 6940, it doesn't feel much different.
C4
It is of course heavier than a 6920, but comparing it to the 6940, it doesn't feel much different.
C4
I took a look on colts website.
They have the 6940 listed at 6.8 lb and the 6940P listed at 6.9 lb.
.1 lb is really not much.... intriguing. For comparative purposes, the base 6920 came it at 6.9 lb also and the 6720 came in at 6.2
per colts website:
6920- 6.9
6940P- 6.9
6940- 6.8
6720- 6.2
sinlessorrow
03-16-12, 11:42
Any pictures of the bottom of the BC?
comparing it to the 6940, it doesn't feel much different.
Out of curiosity, can you/would you weigh the op rod?
All else being more or less equal, that does represent weight 'out there' over the barrel compared to just a DI tube so likely effects overall balance to some small degree doesn't it?
.1#, sure, but .1# disbursed further forward of the natural balance point.
Promise, no pestering about how the rod reciprocating effect may or may not alter muzzle climb and whatnot, unless you care to speculate.
Though on a purely useless informationally cant, it might be amusing to note if it sounds different when fired due to the different mechanicals interfacing. Like does the op rod spring hum like the buffer spring or the post trigger pull cycling sound like a M80 in a bag of bolts. Again, kind of useless overall, or certainly of very low priority but still a curiousity.
Gunny Interstate: This is the Colt 6940P, chosen weapon of our modern forces, and it makes a distinctive sound when fired at, well, pretty much anything
Actually something that can be done quick and easy without a trip to the range: does it sound much different when just picked up and shaken?
Got enough issues with noise dicipline without adding something inside a rifle that can't be damped without effecting actual operation.
Any pictures of the bottom of the BC?
None at this time.
C4
Senior Bigg
04-05-12, 18:17
@ C4IGrant,
Do you know if Colt will offer the piston for those who own the 6940? Will the piston fit under the 6940 rail or is their addition gunsmithing done to the 6940P to make it fit?
Senior
@ C4IGrant,
Do you know if Colt will offer the piston for those who own the 6940? Will the piston fit under the 6940 rail or is their addition gunsmithing done to the 6940P to make it fit?
Senior
The piston upper is a different forging than that of the 6940. So no, Colt won't offer the piston assembly to retrofit a 6940.
@ C41Grant ,
Do you know when/if there will be any option to just order the upper ?
If so, do you have any in stock and can it be shipped to NJ ?
Thanks
Displaced Texan
04-06-12, 11:31
@ C41Grant ,
Do you know when/if there will be any option to just order the upper ?
If so, do you have any in stock and can it be shipped to NJ ?
Thanks
I was going to ask the same question.....can you modify for us ban-staters?
@ C41Grant ,
Do you know when/if there will be any option to just order the upper ?
If so, do you have any in stock and can it be shipped to NJ ?
Thanks
Maybe. At this moment, we cannot get enough guns in to cover existing orders.
C4
I saw Colts 6940 piston gun today? Has anyone shot this gun or done a review yet. It was the 6940 model with piston.
It will be interesting to see how the perception of the gas piston changes over the next 5 years if our boys start using them by the 100,000's.
PB,
Was it a heavy pig? I would think it is. I sure wish that they woould pull their head out and use a different rail. That 6940 rail is too short.
I saw Colts 6940 piston gun today? Has anyone shot this gun or done a review yet. It was the 6940 model with piston.
It will be interesting to see how the perception of the gas piston changes over the next 5 years if our boys start using them by the 100,000's.
Is it (and if so, how) an improvement on the LMT Piston system/design?
I saw Colts 6940 piston gun today? Has anyone shot this gun or done a review yet. It was the 6940 model with piston.
It will be interesting to see how the perception of the gas piston changes over the next 5 years if our boys start using them by the 100,000's.
We are using pistons by the 100,000s in the M249 and M240B/C. Nothing wrong with a piston in the right platform.
Edited, as thread was merged.
I'm interested, but not sure if I'll bite yet.
I love the 6940. For my base-line LEO requisites or the rare 3-gun match, it is perfect for ME.
I'm going to get some popcorn and see how this works out. Perhaps I could buy an upper down the road. Keep us posted Grant.
As for the rail... I have not noticed the shortness. It works fine for me. My wife says that I reference this a lot though...
Is it (and if so, how) an improvement on the LMT Piston system/design?
I saw Colts 6940 piston gun today? Has anyone shot this gun or done a review yet. It was the 6940 model with piston.
It will be interesting to see how the perception of the gas piston changes over the next 5 years if our boys start using them by the 100,000's.
I bet it will become more positive once we have a standard. The 416 has shown that a piston can be a reliable platform when built correctly and not just retrofitted.
sinlessorrow
04-07-12, 14:12
I bet it will become more positive once we have a standard. The 416 has shown that a piston can be a reliable platform when built correctly and not just retrofitted.
Only IF we do get anything from the IC.
And thats a big IF.
What size are the HTS pin holes?
Pistol Shooter
05-14-12, 15:52
Great looking rifle, I'm very fond of my DI 6940. Thanks for sharing C4IGrant. :D
Do you have any idea when Colt will have the SP 901 available ?
sinlessorrow
05-23-12, 18:20
since I have seen on multiple websites people talking about how colt has no idea how to make a piston rifle and how their carrier key will shear off I want to post this.
lets also remember the 6940P is the successor to the highly successful Type-C that competed in the SCAR trials and completed every single test, the only difference is the 6940P has a SOCOM profile barrel(was .gov), standard phosphate carrier(was NiB), and now has a stronger op rod(was thinner). From what I have heard this is also competing in the IC.
now on the carrier key, Colt had this to say about the carrier key.
"the key is no longer screw in via the hex screw ala the standard carrier, the screws you see are merely a cover for what is a pressure fit pin underneath to keep the key from shearing off the carrier body."
since I have seen on multiple websites people talking about how colt has no idea how to make a piston rifle and how their carrier key will shear off I want to post this.
lets also remember the 6940P is the successor to the highly successful Type-C that competed in the SCAR trials and completed every single test, the only difference is the 6940P has a SOCOM profile barrel(was .gov), standard phosphate carrier(was NiB), and now has a stronger op rod(was thinner). From what I have heard this is also competing in the IC.
now on the carrier key, Colt had this to say about the carrier key.
"the key is no longer screw in via the hex screw ala the standard carrier, the screws you see are merely a cover for what is a pressure fit pin underneath to keep the key from shearing off the carrier body."
touche colt, touche.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
06-30-12, 10:07
Just got a couple in!
Pics for your viewing pleasure!
C4
Is this the actual final product? $2,000+ for a LE6940 with what looks a like a cheap aftermarket piston system like an Adam Arms, CMMG or whatever 3rd party overseas company Colt had throw this joke of a piston system together. The pinned gas block that uses C-clips & the BCG is a standard Colt carrier with a staked strike face for an Op rod, in place of the mil-spec gas key & nothing has changed with the bolt, it's just a standard DI bolt, they didn't even bother to remove the useless gas rings. This is a rushed pathetic attempt for Colt to just get something out there in the piston AR market for civilians. I know they have their CM901 that was in the Army's (IC) Individual Carbine trials & the P0923 A.K.A; (APC) Advanced Piston Carbine which is the LE/ MIL select fire version of the LE6940P.
IMO, inorder for Colt to compete with LWRCi, H&K, POF, LMT & other high end piston operated AR's they need to be a lot more innovative than what they have, it doesn't seem like much R&D has gone in to this design, they basically have a pinned Adams Arms gas block & piston system & standard BCG with nothing more than a staked strike face. Colt needs to make a one piece carrier & bolt SPECIFICALLY for a piston, or if they don't want to do the work then they should use a piston system & BCG from LWRCi, a company who knows piston AR's. I can already see all the threads on all the AR forums about the issues, recalls & problems with BCG's & carrier tilt (in it's current configuration).
I'm pissed at Colt, I've been waiting for their Advanced Piston Carbine to add to my collection for over a year, i'm very disappointed in the lack of care/ attention to detail they have obviously failed to meet, & to come out at this price range with their standard 6940 piston conversion is a joke, who would purchase this when you can get a LWRCi M6A2 for $200 more, or a LMT CQB MRP for less?
sinlessorrow
06-30-12, 10:59
Is this the actual final product? $2,000+ for a LE6940 with what looks a like a cheap aftermarket piston system like an Adam Arms, CMMG or whatever 3rd party overseas company Colt had throw this joke of a piston system together. The pinned gas block that uses C-clips & the BCG is a standard Colt carrier with a staked strike face for an Op rod, in place of the mil-spec gas key & nothing has changed with the bolt, it's just a standard DI bolt, they didn't even bother to remove the useless gas rings. This is a rushed pathetic attempt for Colt to just get something out there in the piston AR market for civilians. I know they have their CM901 that was in the Army's (IC) Individual Carbine trials & the P0923 A.K.A; (APC) Advanced Piston Carbine which is the LE/ MIL select fire version of the LE6940P.
IMO, inorder for Colt to compete with LWRCi, H&K, POF, LMT & other high end piston operated AR's they need to be a lot more innovative than what they have, it doesn't seem like much R&D has gone in to this design, they basically have a pinned Adams Arms gas block & piston system & standard BCG with nothing more than a staked strike face. Colt needs to make a one piece carrier & bolt SPECIFICALLY for a piston, or if they don't want to do the work then they should use a piston system & BCG from LWRCi, a company who knows piston AR's. I can already see all the forums about the issues, recalls & problems with BCG's & carrier tilt (in it's current configuration).
I'm pissed at Colt, I've been waiting for their Advanced Piston Carbine to add to my collection for over a year, i'm very disappointed in the lack of care/ attention to detail they have obviously failed to meet, & to come out at this price range with their standard 6940 piston conversion is a joke, who would purchase this when you can get a LWRCi M6A2 for $200 more, or a LMT CQB MRP for less?
How can you say this is rushed?
This is the same rifle as their Type-C with a few mods. The Type-C was demod in 2006 and entered into the SCAR trials where it actually performed incredibly well.
Aside from the HK416 the colt 6940P is one of the most tested piston AR-15's on the market today.
A one piece carrier is not needed when you use the type of pins colt does, the screws are just there to cover them, I covered this in an earlier post, they use the same type of pins that are used in engine pistons, trust me it wont break.
Also considering the rifle passed the SCAR trials im gonna say the standard bolt is fine.
SCAR type-chttp://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/augeekim/SCARtypeC.jpg
The only diff is the barrel is not a SOCOM profile barrel to accept all attachments(IC requirement) and it uses a standard phosphated BCG which is proven
Remember Colt has been making piston AR-15's for over 50yrs now starting with the 703 with the 6940P being their final rendition of a long evolving piston system.
EDIT: the Type-C made it farther than any other AR-15 variant entered into the SCAR trials.
What are peoples take on the Sig 516 piston AR?
Magic_Salad0892
06-30-12, 15:43
How can you say this is rushed?
This is the same rifle as their Type-C with a few mods. The Type-C was demod in 2006 and entered into the SCAR trials where it actually performed incredibly well.
Aside from the HK416 the colt 6940P is one of the most tested piston AR-15's on the market today.
A one piece carrier is not needed when you use the type of pins colt does, the screws are just there to cover them, I covered this in an earlier post, they use the same type of pins that are used in engine pistons, trust me it wont break.
Also considering the rifle passed the SCAR trials im gonna say the standard bolt is fine.
SCAR type-chttp://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/augeekim/SCARtypeC.jpg
The only diff is the barrel is not a SOCOM profile barrel to accept all attachments(IC requirement) and it uses a standard phosphated BCG which is proven
Remember Colt has been making piston AR-15's for over 50yrs now starting with the 703 with the 6940P being their final rendition of a long evolving piston system.
EDIT: the Type-C made it farther than any other AR-15 variant entered into the SCAR trials.
A.) You woldn't even need the pins with a one piece carrier. Maybe Colt has good reasons for it, but I want to know why this is BETTER than a one piece.
B.) I think this gun made it farther because it was a Colt, not because it was a piston gun.
C.) Make the barrel 10.5'', give it an A5 buffer system, and I'll happy.
D.) Why did they shitcan a NiB finish?
sinlessorrow
06-30-12, 18:33
A.) You woldn't even need the pins with a one piece carrier. Maybe Colt has good reasons for it, but I want to know why this is BETTER than a one piece.
B.) I think this gun made it farther because it was a Colt, not because it was a piston gun.
C.) Make the barrel 10.5'', give it an A5 buffer system, and I'll happy.
D.) Why did they shitcan a NiB finish?
1. I didnt say it was better but it allows use of common parts and is just as durable as a one piece.
2. Colt submitted 3 rifles to the SCAR competition and out of all AR-15 pattern rifles this one, the Type-C made it the farthest only being beat bythe FN SCAR.
3. That would be cool, not sure if the A5 is needed on a piston shorty.
4. Probably because there really isnt any real proof UCT is better. I mean what modern design uses a NiB BCG other than LWRCI? None really, SCAR, ACR, AUG, you name it most dont feature the coating.
Magic_Salad0892
07-01-12, 05:39
1. I didnt say it was better but it allows use of common parts and is just as durable as a one piece.
2. Colt submitted 3 rifles to the SCAR competition and out of all AR-15 pattern rifles this one, the Type-C made it the farthest only being beat bythe FN SCAR.
3. That would be cool, not sure if the A5 is needed on a piston shorty.
4. Probably because there really isnt any real proof UCT is better. I mean what modern design uses a NiB BCG other than LWRCI? None really, SCAR, ACR, AUG, you name it most dont feature the coating.
1.) I didn't mean to say it like you said it was better, I meant it as a general question.
2.) I'm curious what the other two varients were and what the circumstances of defeat were.
3.) All AR-15s can benefit from A5 system.
4.) There's no proof it's worse, and it CAN be proven that it's better. IMHO.
sinlessorrow
07-01-12, 09:17
1.) I didn't mean to say it like you said it was better, I meant it as a general question.
2.) I'm curious what the other two varients were and what the circumstances of defeat were.
3.) All AR-15s can benefit from A5 system.
4.) There's no proof it's worse, and it CAN be proven that it's better. IMHO.
1. My guess is its easier for them. All their new rifles now have a bolt carrier with skids in the back, even their DI rifles. Just like how all their monolithic uppers now feature the steel cam pin limiter jnsert into the upper. More common parts makes it easier to manuf. rifles faster.
2.not sure about circumstances, all i know is the Type-C made it to second place.
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/augeekim/SCARtypeA.jpg
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/augeekim/SCARtypeB.jpg
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/augeekim/SCARtypeC.jpg
I do Know the Type-C was the only piston entry Colt submitted.
3. I think the reason no A5 is that the 6940P actually came about for military contracts and again more parts commonality is good for the military and their reluctantness to change(M16A4 still running a rifle stock)
4. UCT is also more expensive and keeping cost down is important to the military.
Colt has also entered a new rifle into the IC.
The Colt SCAR Type-C, M5, Le1020, 6940P(diff names for the same rifle). It now features a fluted CHF barrel, suppressor settings from what I have heard and is now in the IC.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-01-12, 11:45
1. I didnt say it was better but it allows use of common parts and is just as durable as a one piece.
2. Colt submitted 3 rifles to the SCAR competition and out of all AR-15 pattern rifles this one, the Type-C made it the farthest only being beat bythe FN SCAR.
3. That would be cool, not sure if the A5 is needed on a piston shorty.
4. Probably because there really isnt any real proof UCT is better. I mean what modern design uses a NiB BCG other than LWRCI? None really, SCAR, ACR, AUG, you name it most dont feature the coating.
1. Anything that is two pieces put together in whatever special way using whatever special screws is always going to have a greater potential of failure, when it is machined out of one solid pice of steel it will always be stronger than the two piece design, greatly lessening its chance of failure.
2. The Colt Type-A & Type-B were both DI, of course they failed the military's SCAR trial/ torture test, thats why they submitted the piston operated Type-C, a better design than the 2 DI submissions.
4. If there was no proof that NiCorr/ NiB is better than a standard finish then why would Colt found it necessary to coat the Type-C's BCG & other internals in a NiCorr/ nickel-boron treatment for their submission? Which it passed, I would think that the NiCorr treated internals had an impact on the outcome of the SCAR trials. For a $2K+ AR I would expect to have what helped the Type-C pass the SCAR trials, why it's not on the LE6940P is because of $.
Maybe you're right, perhaps there is an element of Colt fanboyishness going on here. But in defense of that, I can name about 12 different companies that produce piston ARs. The majority have been producing rifles for less than a decade. If there is going to be any company I would trust to develop an acceptable piston AR it would have to be Colt. And that isn't just me, I would think most who use their carbines would feel the same way.
But that isn't to say the Colt design isn't above a certain degree of scrutiny. That's why there are being asked a lot of questions about the design of the operating system. For example, other piston designs have adopted a one piece carrier but the 6940P uses the standard carrier, why? I would assume they have a logical reason for it, but maybe not, maybe it was just a cost saving measure to insure a higher degree of parts commonality.
Regardless, it's a Colt.
Some excellent points there. I would prefer to buy a piston AR from a reputable company that has years of experience producing quality weapons. LMT, Colt, and HK come to mind. I own LMT's piston offering and have been extremely satisfied with its performance. However, I wouldn't discount the other offerings as well. I've been following the piston AR market for the past 3 years or so and have to say that LWRC, PWS, and Adams Arms seem to have excellent track records as of late.
Many of the early AR15 piston carbine/conversion companies had early teething problems with their products. Catastrophic carrier tilt, sheared gas keys, and broken op-rods seem to come to mind. That said, I think its a bit strange to me that Colt stuck to a 2 piece carrier (albeit with "special" hardened fasteners/press pins) Many piston AR15 weapons started with 2 piece carriers, only to go to one piece because the op-rod was shearing of the bolted on gas key. Again, if anybody figured out how to make a 2 piece carrier work, it would be Colt.
The hardened steel insert bolted into the cam pin track is interesting to me as well. I can see how it would prevent gouging. It just seems to me though that cam pin gouging is mostly a cosmetic issue and levels off after a couple of thousand of rounds. (At least that's the case in my LMT)
I'll be curious to see how Colt fares in the carrier tilt category. All piston AR designs seem to exhibit a certain amount of tilt/gouging in the extension tube when you run a few thousand rounds through them. My LMT is no exception. The anti-tilt buffer seems to be the best way to eliminate that. Carrier "skis" like the ones on my LMT still cause gouging of the extension tube after enough shots.
sinlessorrow
07-01-12, 12:10
1. Anything that is two pieces put together in whatever special way using whatever special screws is always going to have a greater potential of failure, when it is machined out of one solid pice of steel it will always be stronger than the two piece design, greatly lessening its chance of failure.
2. The Colt Type-A & Type-B were both DI, of course they failed the military's SCAR trial/ torture test, thats why they submitted the piston operated Type-C, a better design than the 2 DI submissions.
4. If there was no proof that NiCorr/ NiB is better than a standard finish then why would Colt found it necessary to coat the Type-C's BCG & other internals in a NiCorr/ nickel-boron treatment for their submission? Which it passed, I would think that the NiCorr treated internals had an impact on the outcome of the SCAR trials. For a $2K+ AR I would expect to have what helped the Type-C pass the SCAR trials, why it's not on the LE6940P is because of $.
1. You dont know much about pressure pins huh?
This is an example of a press-fit pin, granted they are made of diff materials but you get the idea. If the pin is made correctly it will be nearly unbreakable.
http://www.imscs.com/fileadmin/images/products/general/ims-press-fit_en.gif
One of the most common uses of press-fit pins are in these
http://www.cad500parts.com/catalog/pictures/parts/pistonsandrods.jpg
I have yetto see a press-fit pin fail in those bad boys.
2.i agree the Type-C was def better built.
4. I doubt the NiB coating helped the Type-C, i have yet to see tangible proof that NiB is a better coating than phosphate. The SCAR does not use NiB and it won the The competition, the HK416 does not use a NiB bolt carrier, i have yet to see a proven general issue combat rifle that uses NiB bolt carriers. In 2003 when colt was working on the Type-C NiB was the new wiz bang gun coating, now most dont use it.
You also have to think, bright, shiny, reflective coatings are generally counter productive for a combat rifle when it may give away your position.
My experiences with NiB was that the coating sucks and causes more harm that good.
I'll have to agree that the gas key as currently built looks like a point of failure.
LWRC used to dove-tail and set-screw the gas key, using a standard looking gas key. However, there were still many reports of gas keys working loose, so they finally went to the monolithic bolt-carrier, and the problem went away. I'd imagine a dovetail is more secure than a press-fit pin, but I may be wrong.
I think the majority of the more successful piston AR designs use a one-piece BC. I'll keep my pulse on these Colt Pistons as more are let in to the wild.
sinlessorrow
07-01-12, 12:53
I'll have to agree that the gas key as currently built looks like a point of failure.
LWRC used to dove-tail and set-screw the gas key, using a standard looking gas key. However, there were still many reports of gas keys working loose, so they finally went to the monolithic bolt-carrier, and the problem went away. I'd imagine a dovetail is more secure than a press-fit pin, but I may be wrong.
I think the majority of the more successful piston AR designs use a one-piece BC. I'll keep my pulse on these Colt Pistons as more are let in to the wild.
A dove tail is not as strong or secure as press-fit pins.
A press-fit pin is generally a solid piece of steel(or whatever material, and my pics were not the best representation of this.) with a slight bow in the center, in order to install a press fit pin you have to freeze the pin and heat up whatever its fitting into, then you have to use a pneumatic press to install the pins, once installed as the metals start to expand and contract they form a permanent bond.
This basically makes the carrier key become a part of the bolt carrier.
Illgive you a guess how an AK-47 barrel is assembled and what they use?
A dove tail is not as strong or secure as press-fit pins.
A press-fit pin is generally a solid piece of steel(or whatever material, and my pics were not the best representation of this.) with a slight bow in the center, in order to install a press fit pin you have to freeze the pin and heat up whatever its fitting into, then you have to use a pneumatic press to install the pins, once installed as the metals start to expand and contract they form a permanent bond.
This basically makes the carrier key become a part of the bolt carrier.
Illgive you a guess how an AK-47 barrel is assembled and what they use?
Not only are AK barrels press fit into the receiver, so are the gas blocks on SR15 and I believe SR25 series rifles, two rifles commonly viewed as the Ferraris of the AR world.
sinlessorrow
07-01-12, 13:39
This is a solid spirol press fit pin. The grooved part is a slighyl larger diameter than the rest of the pin, that is why you have to heat and freeze the diff parts to make them fit, they have an incredibly high sheer strenth
http://cfnewsads.thomasnet.com/images/large/450/450336.jpg
The linked pins have these shier strengths
.0625 diameter- 600lb shear strength
.0938 diameter- 1450lb shear strength
They keep going up from there, i doubt the piston in the 6940P strikes at 600lbs of force. So a .0625 diameter press fit pin will never shear in a piston AR.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-01-12, 14:17
1. You dont know much about pressure pins huh?
This is an example of a press-fit pin, granted they are made of diff materials but you get the idea. If the pin is made correctly it will be nearly unbreakable.
I have yetto see a press-fit pin fail in those bad boys.
2.i agree the Type-C was def better built.
4. I doubt the NiB coating helped the Type-C, i have yet to see tangible proof that NiB is a better coating than phosphate. The SCAR does not use NiB and it won the The competition, the HK416 does not use a NiB bolt carrier, i have yet to see a proven general issue combat rifle that uses NiB bolt carriers. In 2003 when colt was working on the Type-C NiB was the new wiz bang gun coating, now most dont use it.
You also have to think, bright, shiny, reflective coatings are generally counter productive for a combat rifle when it may give away your position.
My experiences with NiB was that the coating sucks and causes more harm that good.
I know what & how a pressure pin is & works, & regardless how much you love these pins, they will never be as strong as a solid one piece design, you can never take two pieces & "basically" make them one. A solid carrier will aways be stronger, so why even take a chance to see WHEN these pressure pins will fail, that's why 99.9% of piston op AR manufactures use the one piece carrier design. LWRCi has had the most piston AR's in the hands of military & civvies alike, for the most amount of time of any other piston op AR & they found out what happens with the two piece design carrier. Since they have switched to a solid one piece carrier, I have yet to hear of a LWRCi carrier's strike face being sheared off, or any other issue with their BCG.
I take it you've never been any military, if you have you would know the military dosen't use/ issue (in large numbers) the latest or best parts/ firearms, they use the cheapest contract they can get even if they know company A's product has XX% of breaking more than company B. In smaller Spec Ops units they do use LWRCi which uses NiB i.e. US Army OD-D, Rangers & the DEA.
You are aware the entire carrier is not shown in an AR right? the small portion you are able to see of a NiB carrier from an open ejection port which is closed when not firing, in order to keep dirt/derbies out. I've been in combat, i'm a vet of Afghanistan serving 2 toures with La Légion Étrangère's 2e REP. I would trust my life to an LWRCi M6A2 with a NiB BGC, as I did with my FAMAS F-1.
sinlessorrow
07-01-12, 14:31
I know what & how a pressure pin is & works, & regardless how much you love these pins, they will never be as strong as a solid one piece design, you can never take two pieces & "basically" make them one. A solid carrier will aways be stronger, so why even take a chance to see WHEN these pressure pins will fail, that's why 99.9% of piston op AR manufactures use the one piece carrier design. LWRCi has had the most piston AR's in the hands of military & civvies alike, for the most amount of time of any other piston op AR & they found out what happens with the two piece design carrier. Since they have switched to a solid one piece carrier, I have yet to hear of a LWRCi carrier's strike face being sheared off, or any other issue with their BCG.
I take it you've never been any military, if you have you would know the military dosen't use/ issue (in large numbers) the latest or best parts/ firearms, they use the cheapest contract they can get even if they know company A's product has XX% of breaking more than company B. In smaller Spec Ops units they do use LWRCi which uses NiB i.e. US Army OD-D, Rangers & the DEA.
You are aware the entire carrier is not shown in an AR right? the small portion you are able to see of a NiB carrier from an open ejection port which is closed when not firing, in order to keep dirt/derbies out. I've been in combat, i'm a vet of Afghanistan serving 2 toures with La Légion Étrangère's 2e REP. I would trust my life to an LWRCi M6A2 with a NiB BGC, as I did with my FAMAS F-1.
Im confused, what in the world does military experience. Have to do with this?
A .06" diameter press pin has a sheer strength of 600LBS, you really believe it will fail when a op rod strikes it? The op rods dont exert 600lbs of pressure, the only way you will break a press pin is to exceed its shear limit which in this case is 600LBS.
Lets try to keep this on topic and less about i have a military background and you dont, military experiences play no part in press fit pin design.
Also last time i checked Rangers use M4A1's with SOPMOD Block II goodies and LWRCI was in use with DEA but not much else. Imo the HK416 is the most widely used piston AR just ask Arctic1.
Now back to the 6940P and the use of press fit pins with shear strengths of 600lbs. So i will say the 6940P has a 0% chance of shearing the press fit pins given their incredible strength to size ratio.
Let me add the press fit pins used in place of the hex screws is actually a 1/4 inch, so if they used a good press fit pins(which im sure they did) given a 1/4" diameter you will have a shear strength of 10,400lbs.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-01-12, 15:10
Im confused, what in the world does military experience. Have to do with this?
A .06" diameter press pin has a sheer strength of 600LBS, you really believe it will fail when a op rod strikes it? The op rods dont exert 600lbs of pressure, the only way you will break a press pin is to exceed its shear limit which in this case is 600LBS.
Lets try to keep this on topic and less about i have a military background and you dont, military experiences play no part in press fit pin design.
Also last time i checked Rangers use M4A1's with SOPMOD Block II goodies and LWRCI was in use with DEA but not much else. Imo the HK416 is the most widely used piston AR just ask Arctic1.
Now back to the 6940P and the use of press fit pins with shear strengths of 600lbs. So i will say the 6940P has a 0% chance of shearing the press fit pins given their incredible strength to size ratio.
Let me add the press fit pins used in place of the hex screws is actually a 1/4 inch, so if they used a good press fit pins(which im sure they did) given a 1/4" diameter you will have a shear strength of 10,400lbs.
Keep in mind you asked me about NiB in a COMBAT situation giving away ones position. Alos I never said anything about pressure pins being "sheared off", I said "Fail", which could be any type of failure, most likely coming loose with use, obviously gas impinging on to a piston then striking the BCG isn't 100's of lbs of force, so Googling the breaking point of a pin is pointless. When was the last time you checked if Rangers have used the LWRCi M6A2? Heres the thing, I don't need to check, I know from first hand experience that Rangers have used the M6A2 in the Middle East, I don't know in how many numbers or how long they used them, but I know, the first LWRCi I saw/ shot was used by a Ranger.
A dove tail is not as strong or secure as press-fit pins.
A press-fit pin is generally a solid piece of steel(or whatever material, and my pics were not the best representation of this.) with a slight bow in the center, in order to install a press fit pin you have to freeze the pin and heat up whatever its fitting into, then you have to use a pneumatic press to install the pins, once installed as the metals start to expand and contract they form a permanent bond.
This basically makes the carrier key become a part of the bolt carrier.
Illgive you a guess how an AK-47 barrel is assembled and what they use?
Fair enough. Let's get some more of these 6940Ps in to the wild and see how they do. :)
sinlessorrow
07-01-12, 15:30
Keep in mind you asked me about NiB in a COMBAT situation giving away ones position. Alos I never said anything about pressure pins being "sheared off", I said "Fail", which could be any type of failure, most likely coming loose with use, obviously gas impinging on to a piston then striking the BCG isn't 100's of lbs of force, so Googling the breaking point of a pin is pointless. When was the last time you checked if Rangers have used the LWRCi M6A2? Heres the thing, I don't need to check, I know from first hand experience that Rangers have used the M6A2 in the Middle East, I don't know in how many numbers or how long they used them, but I know, the first LWRCi I saw/ shot was used by a Ranger.
Press fit pins if properly installed dont come loose, they have to be drilled out to be removed as well.
The fact that you need a pneumatic press to install them should say something.
Kchen i do know the 6940P was entered into the IC comp with a new fluted barrel a different gas regulator(offers more settings for suppressors).
1. You dont know much about pressure pins huh?
This is an example of a press-fit pin, granted they are made of diff materials but you get the idea. If the pin is made correctly it will be nearly unbreakable.
http://www.imscs.com/fileadmin/images/products/general/ims-press-fit_en.gif
One of the most common uses of press-fit pins are in these
http://www.cad500parts.com/catalog/pictures/parts/pistonsandrods.jpg
I have yetto see a press-fit pin fail in those bad boys.
2.i agree the Type-C was def better built.
4. I doubt the NiB coating helped the Type-C, i have yet to see tangible proof that NiB is a better coating than phosphate. The SCAR does not use NiB and it won the The competition, the HK416 does not use a NiB bolt carrier, i have yet to see a proven general issue combat rifle that uses NiB bolt carriers. In 2003 when colt was working on the Type-C NiB was the new wiz bang gun coating, now most dont use it.
You also have to think, bright, shiny, reflective coatings are generally counter productive for a combat rifle when it may give away your position.
My experiences with NiB was that the coating sucks and causes more harm that good.
Good diesels and 99% of racing motors use free floating wrist pins. Cars with motors that use press fit usually die within 200k.
Not sure what material Colt uses for their pins, but there are specific alloys piston manufacturers use, generally tool steel. Also worth noting is that there aren't any high impact forces on the piston/con rod/crank. But there are on Colt's gas key.
All this press fit pin crap is nice, well, and dandy, but it's simply not necessary.
If colt is making all of their carriers common for ease of manufacture, why add extra steps with a press pin that makes things more complicated?
Wouldn't it be easier to manufacture them all as one piece piston carriers and then on the ones needed for piston guns, they remain unchanged, and for the ones needed for DI guns, they mill the tombstone off and drill and tap for the carrier key prior to heat treat/temper/finish?
Logically, this shit isn't necessarily tracking. It's actually adding in steps, introducing more parts, creating another possible weak point (can you guarantee that every press pin will be perfectly treated and hardened prior to installation?)
I just love it when neophytes drink the koolaid and argue just to argue, even when the people they're arguing against have experience to back up their position.
Sigh.
I think everyone can agree that a one piece carrier would be the strongest. The question though should be, is the pinned connection strong enough? I would assume that they have have cranked through multiple endurance tests with this system. If there turns out to be a problem, I am sure they will change it.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-02-12, 07:06
All this press fit pin crap is nice, well, and dandy, but it's simply not necessary.
If colt is making all of their carriers common for ease of manufacture, why add extra steps with a press pin that makes things more complicated?
Wouldn't it be easier to manufacture them all as one piece piston carriers and then on the ones needed for piston guns, they remain unchanged, and for the ones needed for DI guns, they mill the tombstone off and drill and tap for the carrier key prior to heat treat/temper/finish?
Logically, this shit isn't necessarily tracking. It's actually adding in steps, introducing more parts, creating another possible weak point (can you guarantee that every press pin will be perfectly treated and hardened prior to installation?)
I just love it when neophytes drink the koolaid and argue just to argue, even when the people they're arguing against have experience to back up their position.
Sigh.
My thoughts exactly, it IS adding more unnecessary steps that they will eventually find has weak points in the carrier due to this ridiculous process they have decided to use. It would be much easier as well as more effective to manufacture a solid one piece carrier since it's machined out of one solid piece which is one step. It's a wast of time to go threw the process of manufacturing a two piece carrier then heating & cooling pins that then need to be press fit in to a carrier that still requires standard staked hex screws on top of all that shit. Also it's a fact that a one piece carrier machined out of a solid piece of steel is stronger than a two piece carrier (no matter what kind of neat pins they use).
I have been waiting for Colts APC (Advanced Piston Carbine) P0923 & the civvi semi-auto version: LE6940P & from what I have seen i'm disappointed that Colt couldn't use commonsense & manufacture a one piece carrier, until they do I think I may hold off on purchasing it, or get it & wait until they start having carrier recalls to be replaced with a one piece design. Either way, I have my LWRCi M6A2 that I have used in many advanced carbine classes & have yet to experience any type of malfunction with my M6A2.
I am going to call Colt Defense today (Monday 7/2) & asking them about the carrier, piston system & if they have had any complants about the APC or LE6940P's carrier, i'll post what ever I find out from Colt after speaking with them.
HERE is a video of an operator replacing his auto/SBR LWRCi M6A2 two piece carrier with a one piece carrier, that he recieved from LWRCi. He mentions that his 4 year old M6A2 that has 14K+ rounds threw it, with little maintenance & never having cleaned the gas block, piston or op rod, he has gone threw several of the two piece carriers due to them breaking/ coming loose, other than that he says he has had no other problems. Also it show the benefits of a carrier/ internals coated in NP3/ NiB, which the Colt Type-C used, but now doesn't on the LE6940P... I know it's not a Colt or the LE6940P but it's interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwrfcXzxI4
The reason that Colt is using standard carriers and then pinning the tombstone on is that they have a limited number of mills available (The reason that it was so hard for so long to get Colt 1911s) and they need as many direct impingement parts as they can get for their standard direct impingement rifles (Military and LE contracts have precedence obviously and they are almost entirely DI). Additionally, if they were to have to mill off the tombstone on every carrier for the gas key then the amount of wasted steel would begin to add up, especially due to the fact that Colt's DI line outsells its piston line. Finally, in the event that the military does pick up the 6940P, Colt will immediately have carriers available, even if they have to scrounge from their DI lines in order to get them.
The fake gas key on the piston carrier sticks up above the carrier right? So to manufacture a one-piece system you have to start with a bar of steel that is large enough in diameter so that you can machine away all of the excess. You would need to start with a much larger bar to make a one-piece carrier. That costs money in terms of material machined away, time spent on the machine, and in tool wear. Colt is going to design this as if they were going to build 100k or more of them a year. They have to take production costs into consderation more than the boutique piston upper manufacturers. Further if it is going to have any hope of replacing the DI system it will have to be something that could be manufactured in the millions/yr if necessary.
The fake gas key on the piston carrier sticks up above the carrier right? So to manufacture a one-piece system you have to start with a bar of steel that is large enough in diameter so that you can machine away all of the excess. You would need to start with a much larger bar to make a one-piece carrier. That costs money in terms of material machined away, time spent on the machine, and in tool wear. Colt is going to design this as if they were going to build 100k or more of them a year. They have to take production costs into consderation more than the boutique piston upper manufacturers. Further if it is going to have any hope of replacing the DI system it will have to be something that could be manufactured in the millions/yr if necessary.
I agree with you, and say to the other "engineers" here that if you are so much smarter than Colt and others you need to hire yourself out as consultants.
keeping one carrier with just 2 different gas keys makes a lot more sense for a company... same raw materials, same tools, same machines, etc.
sinlessorrow
07-02-12, 11:58
I agree with you, and say to the other "engineers" here that if you are so much smarter than Colt and others you need to hire yourself out as consultants.
one thing to note is that LWRCI dropped out of the IC because they couldnt make the 4,000 rifles per month. they did not have the machine capabilities.
Colt does and building a carrier like they are allows for faster manuf. 4,000 rifles per month is a whole lot of rifles.
thats 133 rifles per day. if building a two piece carrier and using pins that have shear strengths of 600-10,000lbs makes it easier and faster then so be it.
its not like your going to break a pin, why isnt hungarian complaining the AK uses a press fit pin in its barrel.....wont it break to? when was the last time you heard of a AK barrel breaking off.
Magic_Salad0892
07-02-12, 14:00
Does anybody know what the **** the Hybrid Piston system is?
That's the million dollar question, and I'm 100 times more interested in that than the piston system.
one thing to note is that LWRCI dropped out of the IC because they couldnt make the 4,000 rifles per month. they did not have the machine capabilities.
Colt does and building a carrier like they are allows for faster manuf. 4,000 rifles per month is a whole lot of rifles.
thats 133 rifles per day. if building a two piece carrier and using pins that have shear strengths of 600-10,000lbs makes it easier and faster then so be it.
its not like your going to break a pin, why isnt hungarian complaining the AK uses a press fit pin in its barrel.....wont it break to? when was the last time you heard of a AK barrel breaking off.
Colt can make 700 rifles a day and are increasing that to 900 in the near future.
sinlessorrow
07-02-12, 14:38
Colt can make 700 rifles a day and are increasing that to 900 in the near future.
i realize that but if they got chose as the IC(which I doubt but what if) they would have to produce military rifles and LE rifles as well, having parts that are common helps this.
i realize that but if they got chose as the IC(which I doubt but what if) they would have to produce military rifles and LE rifles as well, having parts that are common helps this.
I agree.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-02-12, 16:09
The reason that Colt is using standard carriers and then pinning the tombstone on is that they have a limited number of mills available (The reason that it was so hard for so long to get Colt 1911s) and they need as many direct impingement parts as they can get for their standard direct impingement rifles (Military and LE contracts have precedence obviously and they are almost entirely DI). Additionally, if they were to have to mill off the tombstone on every carrier for the gas key then the amount of wasted steel would begin to add up, especially due to the fact that Colt's DI line outsells its piston line. Finally, in the event that the military does pick up the 6940P, Colt will immediately have carriers available, even if they have to scrounge from their DI lines in order to get them.
Colt is the largest manufacture of M4's & M16's for MIL/LE, they should have more than adequate milling equipment, the Colt P0923 APC (Advanced Piston Carbine) which is for MIL/LE other than the auto capabilities, the LE6940P is the same APC. & of course Colts DI AR's out sell their FIRST large production piston system for MIL/LE/Civvi, it's NEW. Milling a one piece carrier will almost insure no failures, as I have said before it's a fact that a solid one piece strike face on the carrier is stronger than any two piece design, it would be better for Colt in the long run. If Colt wants to build a PISTON OP AR, then they need to decide if they want a DI or Piston op system, not a iffy in between piston system with DI components.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-02-12, 16:14
I agree with you, and say to the other "engineers" here that if you are so much smarter than Colt and others you need to hire yourself out as consultants.
For the price of $2K+ for a half assed carrier, due to coast? An LWRCi M6A2 is $2,100 - $2,200, note the quality & one piece design carrier with LWRCi for $100-200 more, I would pay $100-200 more for a one piece NiB carrier for the Colt LE6940P.
For the price of $2K+ for a half assed carrier, due to coast? An LWRCi M6A2 is $2,100 - $2,200, note the quality & one piece design carrier with LWRCi for $100-200 more, I would pay $100-200 more for a one piece NiB carrier for the Colt LE6940P.
I wouldn't.
Yay, now its even. Maybe someone can make this silly shit even more silly and turn it into a poll.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-02-12, 16:23
one thing to note is that LWRCI dropped out of the IC because they couldnt make the 4,000 rifles per month. they did not have the machine capabilities.
Colt does and building a carrier like they are allows for faster manuf. 4,000 rifles per month is a whole lot of rifles.
thats 133 rifles per day. if building a two piece carrier and using pins that have shear strengths of 600-10,000lbs makes it easier and faster then so be it.
its not like your going to break a pin, why isnt hungarian complaining the AK uses a press fit pin in its barrel.....wont it break to? when was the last time you heard of a AK barrel breaking off.
LWRCi has quality over Colt, quality takes time, if a DI gun can have it's gas key come loose or break from gasses, what do you think a hardened steel op rod striking the face of the carriers strike face will do, on a two piece carrier? LWRCi learned threw trial & error first using a staked strike face, then dovetailing & staking & still having strike faces come loose & breaking, since they have switched to a one piece design they have not had any issues to my knowledge, as well as on my own LWRCi M6A2. If LWRCi had a larger manufacturing plant & more workers that could put the same quality in to the IC they would be the new US military assault rifle. As for AK's have you ever herd of a problem with a barrel coming loose or breaking off at the trunnion since 1946? There are over 170+ million AK & variants around the world, it's a PROVEN system. A two piece carrier for a piston op AR & even DI AR's is a WELL know issue, that is why Colt is one of the only manufactures to make one.
sinlessorrow
07-02-12, 16:30
LWRCi has quality over Colt, quality takes time, if a DI gun can have it's gas key come loose or break from gasses, what do you think a hardened steel op rod striking the face of the carriers strike face will do, on a two piece carrier? LWRCi learned threw trial & error first using a staked strike face, then dovetailing & staking & still having strike faces come loose & breaking, since they have switched to a one piece design they have not had any issues to my knowledge, as well as on my own LWRCi M6A2. If LWRCi had a larger manufacturing plant & more workers that could put the same quality in to the IC they would be the new US military assault rifle.
you clearly dont have a grasp on how these are made.
the DI gas carrier key just has some screws holding it together.
the 6940P has 2 hardened steel inserts that are assembled using a pneumatic press.
I ask again when was the last time you saw an AK-47 barrel fall off? its held on by the same type of pins as the 6940P uses in its carrier key.
as good as LWRC is they wouldnt be the new Military rifle either, hate to say it but a .1% increase over a good M4A1 doesnt warrant the double to triple price tag. just because LWRC couldnt make a good 2 piece carrier doesnt mean others cant. i mean cmon a dovetail and 2 screw??? that was meant to fail, 2 hardened steel pins that have a shear strength of 600+lbs that are pneumatically installed wont fail.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-02-12, 16:32
I wouldn't.
Yay, now its even. Maybe someone can make this silly shit even more silly and turn it into a poll.
The only "silly shit" is Colts decision to make a two piece carrier for a piston op AR. I agree, their should be a poll, one piece carrier V.S two piece carrier in the LE6940P. I would do it, I just don't know how to...
Magic_Salad0892 i agree 100%, what the hell is the Hybrid Piston System?
and Hungarian_Legionnaire, Do you work for LWRCi or something?
LWRCi has quality over Colt, quality takes time,
This i have problems with, I have seen enough lwrci's have problems with piston and spring cups failing under low round counts to not have great confidence in their product. While Colt is not perfect by any means, there is not another american company out there with as much combat record than Colt. And the LWRCi is not the same piston design as the AK, the AK uses a long stroke set up vs LWRCi's short stroke, and most importantly the Ak's carrier rides on RAILS. If someone could figure out how to engineer the AR's bcg to ride on rails then i think we'd have a winner.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-02-12, 17:00
Magic_Salad0892 i agree 100%, what the hell is the Hybrid Piston System?
and Hungarian_Legionnaire, Do you work for LWRCi or something?
This i have problems with, I have seen enough lwrci's have problems with piston and spring cups failing under low round counts to not have great confidence in their product. While Colt is not perfect by any means, there is not another american company out there with as much combat record than Colt. And the LWRCi is not the same piston design as the AK, the AK uses a long stroke set up vs LWRCi's short stroke, and most importantly the Ak's carrier rides on RAILS. If someone could figure out how to engineer the AR's bcg to ride on rails then i think we'd have a winner.
Haha no, I do not work for any manufacture, I just have experience with many companies & types of firearms, & I don't need to be told how an AK or AR works, I own both, & am a completive shooter as well as a ex Legionnaire & Vet. of Afghanistan.
everyusernametaken
07-02-12, 17:08
The only "silly shit" is Colts decision to make a two piece carrier for a piston op AR. I agree, their should be a poll, one piece carrier V.S two piece carrier in the LE6940P. I would do it, I just don't know how to...
I think everyone can agree that LWRC would be more than happy to take your money. I don't see why Colt needs to be chastised for not living up to irrelevant expectations. :confused:
everyusernametaken
07-02-12, 17:18
Magic_Salad0892 i agree 100%, what the hell is the Hybrid Piston System?
I don't know for sure, but the "hybrid" system was mentioned in the context of Colt's new monolithic uppers with the hardened steel regulator sleeve, which performs the gas regulation function without being affected by change in aperture diameter of the barrel's gas port. This was a feature of the APC piston system, and I think the hybrid was a DI mono upper with this sleeve.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-02-12, 17:22
you clearly dont have a grasp on how these are made.
the DI gas carrier key just has some screws holding it together.
the 6940P has 2 hardened steel inserts that are assembled using a pneumatic press.
I ask again when was the last time you saw an AK-47 barrel fall off? its held on by the same type of pins as the 6940P uses in its carrier key.
as good as LWRC is they wouldnt be the new Military rifle either, hate to say it but a .1% increase over a good M4A1 doesnt warrant the double to triple price tag. just because LWRC couldnt make a good 2 piece carrier doesnt mean others cant. i mean cmon a dovetail and 2 screw??? that was meant to fail, 2 hardened steel pins that have a shear strength of 600+lbs that are pneumatically installed wont fail.
Are you an engineer for Colt or were you on the DEV team of the APC? You know the exact pins Colt is using, what materials they are made of & their breaking strength? Because that is a manufacturing secrete of Colt, if they put out everything you claim to know then anyone could go low budget & make these "shear strength of 600+lbs" carriers. The thing is you don't know how these will hold up to mass use, the only thing that is fact is how a one piece carrier is stronger than a two piece design. When was the last time you've herd of or seen a one piece carrier fail?
To say something as ridiculous as "as good as LWRC is they wouldnt be the new Military rifle either, hate to say it but a .1% increase over a good M4A1" that's a joke, you're saying a LWRCi M6A2 is a .1% increase over a current military issue M4A1? They don't even compare & it's not just LWRCi, H&K is also a 10X better more reliable rifle than a DI M4A1... You're clearly lacking in knowledge in combat rifles & what makes them a more reliable system, it's okay it comes with experience that you don't have.
sinlessorrow
07-02-12, 17:48
Are you an engineer for Colt or were you on the DEV team of the APC? You know the exact pins Colt is using, what materials they are made of & their breaking strength? Because that is a manufacturing secrete of Colt, if they put out everything you claim to know then anyone could go low budget & make these "shear strength of 600+lbs" carriers. The thing is you don't know how these will hold up to mass use, the only thing that is fact is how a one piece carrier is stronger than a two piece design. When was the last time you've herd of or seen a one piece carrier fail?
To say something as ridiculous as "as good as LWRC is they wouldnt be the new Military rifle either, hate to say it but a .1% increase over a good M4A1" that's a joke, you're saying a LWRCi M6A2 is a .1% increase over a current military issue M4A1? They don't even compare & it's not just LWRCi, H&K is also a 10X better more reliable rifle than a DI M4A1... You're clearly lacking in knowledge in combat rifles & what makes them a more reliable system, it's okay it comes with experience that you don't have.
ummm.....excuse you? I think you need to back down a little bit. you being in the military doesnt mean you know jack shit(not saying you dont know stuff read below)
I have enough friends in the military who say the dumbest shit I have ever in my life heard about small arms to let me know just cause your in the military doesnt mean you know much about firearms.
whats so far fetched about the part in blue? its been proven time and time again that if they offer any improvement its basically a few thousand rounds more parts life. nothing worth the double to triple the price.
I want you to prove to me the HK416 is 10x as reliable as the M4A1.......I'm waiting.......you cant.
also everything I have seen has shown LWRC is far from perfect, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I talked to Ken Elmore and he told me the material of the pins used and judging by their Diameter(diameter of the carrier key holes) they should have a shear strength of around 4,000lbs.
now lets try to keep this less like TOS and more like M4C and try to stay on topic and get less insulted when someone doesnt praise your favorite rifle.
fact is Press-Fit Pins wont shear like you seem to think, they are an incredibly durable way to mount things, again the AK-47 uses them in their barrels.
LWRC does not have quality over Colt. I was in a Pat Rogers class when he had 3-4 test LWRCs, 2 of which would not go 10 rounds without a malfunction. The malfunctions had nothing to do with the carriers.
I remember a time when this forum and other forums were overrun with posts from people whose LWRCs would not run.
Lets not forget the DEA in Afghanistan who stopped using LWRCs due to reliability issues.
And what about their REPR that did not work with any magazines.
LWRC may have gotten better over time, but there is no way I would take them over a Colt DI gun.
At this point the Colt 6940P is an unknown to me. I have not taken a close look at it, and it may indeed suffer from the issues that you have pointed out.
But LWRC's track record is anything but golden and they have had enough issues in the past to distrust them in the future.
LWRCi has quality over Colt, quality takes time, if a DI gun can have it's gas key come loose or break from gasses, what do you think a hardened steel op rod striking the face of the carriers strike face will do, on a two piece carrier? LWRCi learned threw trial & error first using a staked strike face, then dovetailing & staking & still having strike faces come loose & breaking, since they have switched to a one piece design they have not had any issues to my knowledge, as well as on my own LWRCi M6A2. If LWRCi had a larger manufacturing plant & more workers that could put the same quality in to the IC they would be the new US military assault rifle. As for AK's have you ever herd of a problem with a barrel coming loose or breaking off at the trunnion since 1946? There are over 170+ million AK & variants around the world, it's a PROVEN system. A two piece carrier for a piston op AR & even DI AR's is a WELL know issue, that is why Colt is one of the only manufactures to make one.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-02-12, 18:14
ummm.....excuse you? I think you need to back down a little bit. you being in the military doesnt mean you know jack shit(not saying you dont know stuff read below)
I have enough friends in the military who say the dumbest shit I have ever in my life heard about small arms to let me know just cause your in the military doesnt mean you know much about firearms.
whats so far fetched about the part in blue? its been proven time and time again that if they offer any improvement its basically a few thousand rounds more parts life. nothing worth the double to triple the price.
I want you to prove to me the HK416 is 10x as reliable as the M4A1.......I'm waiting.......you cant.
also everything I have seen has shown LWRC is far from perfect, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I talked to Ken Elmore and he told me the material of the pins used and judging by their Diameter(diameter of the carrier key holes) they should have a shear strength of around 4,000lbs.
now lets try to keep this less like TOS and more like M4C and try to stay on topic and get less insulted when someone doesnt praise your favorite rifle.
fact is Press-Fit Pins wont shear like you seem to think, they are an incredibly durable way to mount things, again the AK-47 uses them in their barrels.
I don't have a favorite rifle, I have favorite rifle(s), as for the pins so far you have said 3 different breaking strengths & it keeps going up, is it going to be 2K or 3K lbs next comment? Also i'm not IN the military, I live in the states, it would be very difficult to be in the French Foreign Legion, I am an EX Legionnaire. I am also a life time shooter, I know more than enough about firearms, you can ask all your military buddies, being in the military doesn't mean anything, people who know weapons is because it's a very large part of their life, not because they are military. Once AGAIN I NEVER said "shear", I said "FAIL", most likely come loose & I am well aware of how AK47, AK74 & other variants barrels are mounted. Is it that hard for you to swallow the face that you are wrong, that a one piece carrier is stronger than a two piece carrier? (no matter what kind of pins are holding it in place) deal with it, it's fact. As for LWRCi & H&K I was naming both not just H&K, as soon as I find the magazine of how many more rounds an LWRCi can go with out cleaning or failure than a standard issue DI M4A1 I will post pics & the numbers I have from LWRCi's IC as it passed the IC trials torture tests ect. minus manufacturing enough units.
@sinlessorrow:
Why are you claiming that the M4 needs to be replaced over on LF and HKPro, whilst you are adamant about it's superiority here?
Just wondering, as comes across as a bit inconsistent.
Also, what does HK's, LWRC's, AK's and what not have to do with the Colt LE6940P?
All this posturing about shear strengths, or lack thereof, failure points etc is purely conjecture. Can anyone point to a failure of this specific 2-piece carrier design from Colt, for the piston and op-rod?
And who cares how many rounds a gun can shoot during an endurance test? That is a spec requirement, and gives an estimate on how the gun performs under extreme circumstances. No gun is designed to run dirty or dry over time, under normal use.
sinlessorrow
07-02-12, 18:21
I don't have a favorite rifle, I have favorite rifle(s), as for the pins so far you have said 3 different breaking strengths & it keeps going up, is it going to be 2K or 3K lbs next comment? Also i'm not IN the military, I live in the states, it would be very difficult to be in the French Foreign Legion, I am an EX Legionnaire. I am also a life time shooter, I know more than enough about firearms, you can ask all your military buddies, being in the military doesn't mean anything, people who know weapons is because it's a very large part of their life, not because they are military. Once AGAIN I NEVER said "shear", I said "FAIL", most likely come loose & I am well aware of how AK47, AK74 & other variants barrels are mounted. Is it that hard for you to swallow the face that you are wrong, that a one piece carrier is stronger than a two piece carrier? (no matter what kind of pins are holding it in place) deal with it, it's fact. As for LWRCi & H&K I was naming both not just H&K, as soon as I find the magazine of how many more rounds an LWRCi can go with out cleaning or failure than a standard issue DI M4A1 I will post pics & the numbers I have from LWRCi's IC as it passed the IC trials torture tests ect. minus manufacturing enough units.
i was giving examples, the cheapest Pins i could find were rated for 600lbs, the more expensive ones are rated for 10,000lbs at 1/4" in diameter
a press fit pin will not come loose, they are generally bowed in the center this basically proves that the pressure and design will make them near impossible to come loose, its not a hard concept to grasp
well while you go looking for that I'll post my pics and information, also see Ed L's post, the LWRCI dont seem to do great in real combat situations.
http://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-t-magazine-filthy-14/
Arctic1 I was using the AK-47 as an example of how press fit pins will not shear or work them selves loose, the AK-47 uses them in the instillation of their barrels.. I also am not saying the M4A1 is superior just that the HK416 is not 10x better. to make a statement like that without proof is pointless.
not sure about LF but I am on HKpro, and my main reason I mention replacing the M4A1 is purely from a if the PiP will leave us with a standard M4A1 the IC offer a slight upgrade in the fact they have modern parts.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-02-12, 18:30
LWRC does not have quality over Colt. I was in a Pat Rogers class when he had 3-4 test LWRCs, 2 of which would not go 10 rounds without a malfunction. The malfunctions had nothing to do with the carriers.
I remember a time when this forum and other forums were overrun with posts from people whose LWRCs would not run.
Lets not forget the DEA in Afghanistan who stopped using LWRCs due to reliability issues.
And what about their REPR that did not work with any magazines.
LWRC may have gotten better over time, but there is no way I would take them over a Colt DI gun.
At this point the Colt 6940P is an unknown to me. I have not taken a close look at it, and it may indeed suffer from the issues that you have pointed out.
But LWRC's track record is anything but golden and they have had enough issues in the past to distrust them in the future.
LWRCi defiantly had many issues in that past, that why I mentioned that "LWRCi has learned their lesson with two pice carriers" I've an M6A2 that I have yet to have any type of failure & I am a completive shooter & have attended many advanced carbine classes that are multiple days long, that last the entire day, shooting 1,000's in a in that time period with out failure (unless it's a failure drill & I manipulate the failure myself). They are still used by US Army's OD-D & I was unaware that the DEA had stopped using the M6A2, LWRCi clames that the DEA FAST Teams still use their rifles.
I have 30+ some rifles, I just use LWRCi as an example because they have have the most widely used piston operated AR of any military & civvi piston AR, that means they have had the most use, the most experience, failures & have had the years to get feedback to fix the issues that they have very successfully.
I have 30+ some rifles, I just use LWRCi as an example because they have have the most widely used piston operated AR of any military & civvi piston AR, that means they have had the most use, the most experience, failures & have had the years to get feedback to fix the issues that they have very successfully.
Huh.....I think I need to check if our 25,000 HK416's are in fact LWRC guns.
And you probably know more about the weapons selection of US SMU's than say LAV, when it comes to piston AR's in use.
Magic_Salad0892
07-02-12, 20:02
Piston ARs have problems. ALL of them do.
There are no exceptions known to this rule.
Ask LWRCi. LMT. HK (hello cracked receivers!). Osprey. Adam Arms. Etc.
Colt is literally THE only company I can think of that I would trust to get it right.
Why? Because they've been designing the goddamn thing for 40 years. (off and on)
I used to own LWRCi rifles. And while I didn't have any problems. They do not do ANYTHING better than a well built DI gun.
I'd take an M4A1 over a LWRCi/416 any day.
sinlessorrow
07-02-12, 20:51
Huh.....I think I need to check if our 25,000 HK416's are in fact LWRC guns.
And you probably know more about the weapons selection of US SMU's than say LAV, when it comes to piston AR's in use.
:sarcastic:
look Hungarian, you like your LWRC and thats great, but the hK416 is the most widely used piston AR-15 and the Norwegian military alone makes that so since its their standard issued rifle.
that said Colt has been making piston AR-15's longer than any other company, if anyone can make it work they can.
the press fit pin method is a valid method, the pins wont shear, and they wont wiggle loose, they just cant.
Piston ARs have problems. ALL of them do.
There are no exceptions known to this rule.
Ask LWRCi. LMT. HK (hello cracked receivers!). Osprey. Adam Arms. Etc.
(snip)
I'd take an M4A1 over a LWRCi/416 any day.
From Larry Vickers on the subject:
Just a little tidbit gents for the 416 haters out there- I just got some info that one specialized end user currently using 416's tested it against several ( read that as most) current DI and piston guns to find a potential replacement and the result of the test was.....
The HK416 will stay in place as the issue assault rifle
None of the other guns came close to it performance wise from what I was told- you may not like HK but based on what they found during their test no one makes a better gun as of right now
That's all I can say - spin it however you want but this organization can and will buy whatever they want to get the job done; if there was something better they would be using it or in the process of buying it
Ho hum. I was talking design, not Brand names. But I guess we can't resist Brand Bashing about these parts.
In piston AR's the gold standard of course is the HK 416- the civilian legal version called the MR556 is basically the same gun with some changes like a heavier, non chrome lined bore that make it different enough that some people prefer to source a grey market HK 416 upper or choose a different piston gun. The MR556 has an excellent reputation for accuracy and although heavy is a very well made rifle. Another piston brand I have seen that I have seen good results with is LWRC - the majority of LWRC guns I have seen in my classes perform well; If I wanted a piston AR and did not want an HK product I would look at an LWRC offering.
The Internet, and M4C is no exception, has been full of non objective comments and threads regarding this subject- I would urge potential buyers to sort thru the emotion to determine what makes sense for them - remember any of the guns I listed with good ammo ( getting harder to find these days at a reasonable cost), good magazines and well lubed have proven to be reliable performers; in fact we live in the golden era of AR style black rifles- never before has there been so many good choices in this category
There are other quality brands on the market to be sure- I just listed the ones that I have the most experience with and have seen the fewest problems with in my classes
Now the task is up to you to take the emotion out of your decision making process and buy a carbine that you decide will get the job done
Be safe
LAV
I can't imagine all the people who take their carbine course experience as the end all be all of which weapons work, and which weapons don't. In the end, your anecdotal experience is but a sample size of a few.
justin_247
07-02-12, 23:32
...I've an M6A2...They are still used by US Army's OD-D.
Is that so? And how would you know this information?
Anybody got a link regarding this epidemic of cracked HK receivers?
I have only seen the article over on Defence Review, written by David Crane:
http://www.defensereview.com/ruger-sr-556-gas-pistonop-rod-ar-15-carbine-ruger-enters-the-piston-driven-ar-fray/
It was supposedly one gun with an extreme round count that broke:
http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk416-hk417-hq/112260-10-hk416-kits.html
And the op-rod and piston freezing in cold weather.....most likely user induced.
sinlessorrow
07-03-12, 07:22
I have only seen the article over on Defence Review, written by David Crane:
http://www.defensereview.com/ruger-sr-556-gas-pistonop-rod-ar-15-carbine-ruger-enters-the-piston-driven-ar-fray/
It was supposedly one gun with an extreme round count that broke:
http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk416-hk417-hq/112260-10-hk416-kits.html
And the op-rod and piston freezing in cold weather.....most likely user induced.
The freezig was probably from improperly handling a firearm in freazing temps. You have to be careful to avoid condensation i low temps.
The freezig was probably from improperly handling a firearm in freazing temps. You have to be careful to avoid condensation i low temps.
Uhm....yeah. I know.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-03-12, 08:30
:sarcastic:
look Hungarian, you like your LWRC and thats great, but the hK416 is the most widely used piston AR-15 and the Norwegian military alone makes that so since its their standard issued rifle.
that said Colt has been making piston AR-15's longer than any other company, if anyone can make it work they can.
the press fit pin method is a valid method, the pins wont shear, and they wont wiggle loose, they just cant.
I own a H&K MR556A1, as I said in my last post I don't like one rifle/company over another, LWRCi was just an example, I could say the same for H&K, which is an amazing piston op AR. Also I am from Hungary, i.e. my username I don't need to be told to "listen" to you.
When/what Colt piston op AR has been sold to civvies or been in use with any MIL/LE? The CM901 & APC is the first one i've ever know to make it past being a prototype.
sinlessorrow
07-03-12, 10:04
I own a H&K MR556A1, as I said in my last post I don't like one rifle/company over another, LWRCi was just an example, I could say the same for H&K, which is an amazing piston op AR. Also I am from Hungary, i.e. my username I don't need to be told to "listen" to you.
When/what Colt piston op AR has been sold to civvies or been in use with any MIL/LE? The CM901 & APC is the first one i've ever know to make it past being a prototype.
the APC is the only one ever offered to civilians but every piston rifle they have made has been past the prototype stages and they have all had production models for testing.
Again the two piece carrier usin press fit pins was used inthe SCAR trials and it never once had issues.
You can say they will come loose till your blue in the face, it doesnt make it true and testing has shown it to not be true.
This is the earliest piston AR- 1969 Colt 703, tested against the M16A1 and was found to not offer any tangible improvement.
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/544/piston1xc0.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii157/ewb352/colt703b.jpg
Then there was the Type-C In the SCAR trials(2003) The FN entry beat it but it did complete testing.
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/augeekim/SCARtypeC.jpg
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/3148/immagine1np.png
Then there was the Colt M5(2006).
http://photos.imageevent.com/smglee/shotshow2006/large/SS06-011.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/smglee/shotshow2006/large/SS06-003.jpg
Now we have the 6940P, it is currently in the IC competition.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940PA.jpg
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6940P_OR.jpg
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-03-12, 11:04
Is their any difference between the Colt M5 & APC/ LE6940P? They look very similar, also the Colt 703 looks like a great design, basically a copy of the AK47's piston system... too bad they decided to go DI you know that saying about DI AR's "don't shit where you eat", hot gasses, unburnt powder & carbon fouling going in to the receivers trigger ect. is the AR's bigest design fault IMO.
sinlessorrow
07-03-12, 11:20
Is their any difference between the Colt M5 & APC/ LE6940P? They look very similar, also the Colt 703 looks like a great design, basically a copy of the AK47's piston system... too bad they decided to go DI you know that saying about DI AR's "don't shit where you eat", hot gasses, unburnt powder & carbon fouling going in to the receivers trigger ect. is the AR's bigest design fault IMO.
Main difference is the barrel the 2006 rifle had the M4 barrel the new 6940p(M4 Enhanced IC) has the A1 barrel. Also from what i can tell the 6940P op rod is slightly larger in diameter. The Type-C was a well designed winning piston system so they refined it into what became the LE1020, and now it is called the 6940P.
Wanna see something interesting??
This is the original M5 design then they chose to go monolithic, this also predates the HK416
http://img15.exs.cx/img15/4972/coltsm540vq.jpg
http://img15.exs.cx/img15/1363/m5mm14li.jpg
Looks familiar huh?
Magic_Salad0892
07-03-12, 15:59
Is their any difference between the Colt M5 & APC/ LE6940P? They look very similar, also the Colt 703 looks like a great design, basically a copy of the AK47's piston system... too bad they decided to go DI you know that saying about DI AR's "don't shit where you eat", hot gasses, unburnt powder & carbon fouling going in to the receivers trigger ect. is the AR's bigest design fault IMO.
IMHO, better than a piston system. There are several examples of DI ARs going 10k+ withought cleaning, and maintaining reliability.
Magic_Salad0892
07-03-12, 16:02
From Larry Vickers on the subject:
I didn't say the 416 was a piece of crap. Even if I want it to suck. It doesn't. It's a good rifle.
However:
It DID have problems.
This is the original M5 design then they chose to go monolithic, this also predates the HK416
Link? Proof?
sinlessorrow
07-03-12, 16:49
Link? Proof?
This is the best I can do a prototype picture. The earliest pics are from 2003.
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/869/m5xu7.png
Im honestly not sure when the M5 became the LE1020, i have seen the M5 demo'd at the same time as the LE1020 and then in later years gone and the LE1020 is now called the M5. It gets rsther confusing, but the M5 came first.
I have even seen the M5 with a delta ring assembly which i always assumed came first followed by the one linked but who knows.
So did the delta ring M5 or the non delta ring M5 come first?....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/redfisher19/Redfisher3/DSCN0019Small.jpg
I didn't say the 416 was a piece of crap. Even if I want it to suck. It doesn't. It's a good rifle.
However:
It DID have problems.
And the M16 FOW did not? Weapons are man made, and will eventually break.
Btw, how many rounds do you have through one? Have you seen any guns break yourself? 416's that is.
I have talked about the issues we have had, not major ones, and HK has been very helpful in terms of fixing the issues for us.
Failure2Stop
07-03-12, 17:20
They are still used by US Army's OD-D & I was unaware that the DEA had stopped using the M6A2, LWRCi clames that the DEA FAST Teams still use their rifles.
You seem like a decent dude trying to pass your experience and knowledge to others, but you are coming across negatively and in several instances are incorrect in your absolute statements.
You need to take a step or two back, reevaluate your approach and check your facts.
Apparently you don't have much trigger time with the AR platform. Most of us who actually shoot have come to find out that the weapon will continue to run as long as it keeps wet (lubed).
Is their any difference between the Colt M5 & APC/ LE6940P? They look very similar, also the Colt 703 looks like a great design, basically a copy of the AK47's piston system... too bad they decided to go DI you know that saying about DI AR's "don't shit where you eat", hot gasses, unburnt powder & carbon fouling going in to the receivers trigger ect. is the AR's bigest design fault IMO.
Magic_Salad0892
07-03-12, 18:46
And the M16 FOW did not? Weapons are man made, and will eventually break.
Btw, how many rounds do you have through one? Have you seen any guns break yourself? 416's that is.
I have talked about the issues we have had, not major ones, and HK has been very helpful in terms of fixing the issues for us.
I have about 1.3k or so through a friend's MR556A1, that he had cut to 10.4''.
However, that's not the gun that had malfs.
The 416's cracked receiver problem is well documented.
And you seem to forget the the only reason the M16 had problems was because it was changed from it's original spec. When it was changed back the problems went away.
Magic_Salad0892
07-03-12, 18:46
Apparently you don't have much trigger time with the AR platform. Most of us who actually shoot have come to find out that the weapon will continue to run as long as it keeps wet (lubed).
I've seen pretty decent results when run dry as well.
Dwsmitht343
07-03-12, 19:49
I would like to see the accuracy difference between the colt piston and di guns. I am also interested to see how this piston gun shakes out. I am curious as to why a press fit pin and not a simple weld. Is it due to the recoil forces causing cracks or heat stress on the bolt carrier?
Anyone have any thoughts or experience with Sig's piston AR, I believ it's the 516? I curious because it is priced nice and seems to be of great build quality. Thanks!
sinlessorrow
07-03-12, 20:55
Anyone have any thoughts or experience with Sig's piston AR, I believ it's the 516? I curious because it is priced nice and seems to be of great build quality. Thanks!
I would pass given Sig USA's lackluster QC, they sadly ride the coat tail of their parent Sig company.
This is the best I can do a prototype picture. The earliest pics are from 2003.
Proof that this pic actually dates to 2003?
Nothing I could find after a pretty long 'net search shows anything on the M5, or any colt piston gun (excepting the old original one which is nothing like any of the new models) dating back that far.
The 416's cracked receiver problem is well documented.
Yup, well documented.
That it was a single event. Not a series.
Here are the words of a guy that I do not get along with, but who DOES have a lot of good info on the life and times of the 416. Why? Because he was the guy who originally pitched the idea to Larry Vickers and was at the forefront of the 416 development, testing, and fielding of the system. He has much first hand knowledge of the platform and what he says below is as close as you're going to get to this supposed "well documented" non-issue...
Okay. Listen up!
One unit had one severely cracked receiver out of 500+ weapons. That gun had 60K rounds through it, much of it suppressed and with special ammo. Sister units have not experienced a single similar incident. Of course all the want-a-be companies who copied the op rod AR design that HK unveiled in 2004/05 are riding this horse hard, trying to make hay while the sun shines, especially with the Army soon looking for a new carbine in 2010. It is always hard being top dog and the HK416 is THE ONLY M4-style weapon that is fielded in select US SOF units save the M4 and MK18 CQBR so its gonna take fire anytime something happen no matter how insignificant.
These guns are used hard and fast. Some are gonna break. All things considered the HK416 is everything is was promised to be and more and it is well liked/loved by the user community.
All this being said the reaction from the maker will determine if this unit decides to stay with the HK416 or look to something else, now that once inside folks see an opportunity and are pouncing on it. Bottom line is customer service ALWAYS trumpts product performance.
Now imagine what a 2010 HK416 would look like with all the lessons learned applied?
Okay. Stand at ease!
G3Kurz
sinlessorrow
07-03-12, 21:43
Proof that this pic actually dates to 2003?
Nothing I could find after a pretty long 'net search shows anything on the M5, or any colt piston gun (excepting the old original one which is nothing like any of the new models) dating back that far.
honestly I dont have any real tangible proof since no one uses cameras with dates.
that said for what I can find using corresponding post dates to pictures, the one with the delta ring is the 2003 model, the one without the delta ring came out in 2004.
the only thing I do know is the handguard with a tab in the top to mate with the upper was started on the M5 before the HK416.
I would like to see the accuracy difference between the colt piston and di guns. I am also interested to see how this piston gun shakes out. I am curious as to why a press fit pin and not a simple weld. Is it due to the recoil forces causing cracks or heat stress on the bolt carrier?
Sometimes the press fit pin is stronger than a weld. The weld would probably have to be very precise to not cause fit issues between the carrier and upper though. Guys that can make those welds are expensive to keep around.
Magic_Salad0892
07-04-12, 00:28
Yup, well documented.
That it was a single event. Not a series.
Here are the words of a guy that I do not get along with, but who DOES have a lot of good info on the life and times of the 416. Why? Because he was the guy who originally pitched the idea to Larry Vickers and was at the forefront of the 416 development, testing, and fielding of the system. He has much first hand knowledge of the platform and what he says below is as close as you're going to get to this supposed "well documented" non-issue...
You win. I was wrong.
However: I will say I remember hearing that it was a couple hundred units, and that HK fixed the problem.
honestly I dont have any real tangible proof since no one uses cameras with dates.
that said for what I can find using corresponding post dates to pictures, the one with the delta ring is the 2003 model, the one without the delta ring came out in 2004.
the only thing I do know is the handguard with a tab in the top to mate with the upper was started on the M5 before the HK416.
Look, i'm not trying to bust your balls here, I just want proof. You're saying a lot of stuff with nothing to back it up. There is no proof that I can find, including the usual internet scuttlebutt that would be present if Colt were in fact working on some sort of piston system prior to the 416, or anything regarding the tabbed handguard system.
You say you "know", but do not provide facts when asked. All i'm asking is for that proof. That way, I can share the same information with others and have verifiable data to back up my statements as well.
And nothing personal, but you are here and on a few other boards throwing in your two cents about a lot of subjects, but all it ever seems is that you're simply regurgitating crap you've found on the internet, or doing what you're doing in this thread and making statements that you can't back up, and that I cannot verify because I don't have the personal experience, nor is that information on the internet that I can find even after pretty extensive searches.
You win. I was wrong.
However: I will say I remember hearing that it was a couple hundred units, and that HK fixed the problem.
It's not about winning bud, it's about making sure we're sharing the right information and building our collective knowledge base.
As long as we can do that, we're all better off for it.
Proof that this pic actually dates to 2003?
Nothing I could find after a pretty long 'net search shows anything on the M5, or any colt piston gun (excepting the old original one which is nothing like any of the new models) dating back that far.
Well if, there is a pic of something in 2003, then you can assume that it was being designed and prototypes tested anywhere from 2000-2002.
C4
sinlessorrow
07-04-12, 10:50
Look, i'm not trying to bust your balls here, I just want proof. You're saying a lot of stuff with nothing to back it up. There is no proof that I can find, including the usual internet scuttlebutt that would be present if Colt were in fact working on some sort of piston system prior to the 416, or anything regarding the tabbed handguard system.
You say you "know", but do not provide facts when asked. All i'm asking is for that proof. That way, I can share the same information with others and have verifiable data to back up my statements as well.
And nothing personal, but you are here and on a few other boards throwing in your two cents about a lot of subjects, but all it ever seems is that you're simply regurgitating crap you've found on the internet, or doing what you're doing in this thread and making statements that you can't back up, and that I cannot verify because I don't have the personal experience, nor is that information on the internet that I can find even after pretty extensive searches.
You really think im just makig all this up? I posted pics of colt prototypes, do you believe they are fake as well?
I got the information about the press fit pin design from Ken Elmore and who would know better than him.
As far as the prototypes, i found them through google with corresponding dates, so if i find a tabbed handguard Cplt M5 picture posted in 2003 its safe to assume its from 2003, unless of coure someone went back intime and edited a 9yr old post.
I have found posts on BARFCOM with pictures of the tabbed M5 without delta ring posted in 2004-2005.
I have found posts of the monolithic LE1020 with pictures posted in 2005-2012.
I found one post with the delta ring tabbed handguard from 2003.
you can say what you want, but if there are pictures of the rifles in 2004 or 2003 its safe to assume they were working on them in 2000-2004, these guns take time to make, and if they are displayed in 2003-2004 they have been in the works much longer.
there is nothing wrong with the HK416, but its also not original. it seems to have borrowed a few things from Colt. Actually alot today came from colt, like the old 3.4x ELCANS that colt had on their ACR back in the day, or how the SOPMOD stock also came from the ACR trials and Colts gun.
Well if, there is a pic of something in 2003, then you can assume that it was being designed and prototypes tested anywhere from 2000-2002.
You are perfectly right. So we have Colt prototype picture, from 2003. But HK416 was adopted (commissioned to use) by Delta in 2004. So I believe development process at HK, testing and acceptance with Delta and then manufacturing and delivery of those rifles did happened overnight, just after HK saw and shamelessly copied Colt design. And of course Colt had one of their good days not to sue HK for patent infringement when they did it for use of "M4" in HKM4 :smile:
sinlessorrow
07-04-12, 12:44
You are perfectly right. So we have Colt prototype picture, from 2003. But HK416 was adopted (commissioned to use) by Delta in 2004. So I believe development process at HK, testing and acceptance with Delta and then manufacturing and delivery of those rifles did happened overnight, just after HK saw and shamelessly copied Colt design. And of course Colt had one of their good days not to sue HK for patent infringement when they did it for use of "M4" in HKM4 :smile:
I think its more like Colt designed the tabbed handguard while HK was still the HKM4D and was meant as a drop in replacement.
they for whatever reason eventually moved to a monolithic platform that we see today.
@Sinlessorrow:
Whoever claimed that the HK416 is original?
It's a G36'ish oprod and piston put inside an M4. That was the whole point of the entire development of the system. That is also why many M16 FOW parts are compatible.
That is what a certain unit wanted in order to increase the reliability of a system that was being run suppressed on full auto, with a short barrel.
So the HK416 is a very good system in and of itself. However, that fact does not take away from the reliability or durability of the standard DI system. Why must it be so hard to acknowledge these points?
sinlessorrow
07-04-12, 13:03
@Sinlessorrow:
Whoever claimed that the HK416 is original?
It's a G36'ish oprod and piston put inside an M4. That was the whole point of the entire development of the system. That is also why many M16 FOW parts are compatible.
That is what a certain unit wanted in order to increase the reliability of a system that was being run suppressed on full auto, with a short barrel.
So the HK416 is a very good system in and of itself. However, that fact does not take away from the reliability or durability of the standard DI system. Why must it be so hard to acknowledge these points?
no one, I was just making a statement.
I was more stating you can see certain designs Colt has done and how they have influenced other designers choices. alot of what we see in current designs based around the AR platform colt had done at one point or another.
Like I said the ElcanM145 was originally seen on the Colt ACR(later Raytheon purchased its design and made it the M145)
the LMT SOPMOD stock was also seen on the ACR(not exactly the same but the design is very very very similar)
this was in 1980, while the ACR trials were a flop the optic and stock later became current day items.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Colt_ACR.jpg
Well, by making that statement you are creating a straw man argument in this discussion. Because you totally missed the point of Grumpy's post.
He never said that you made stuff up, he was asking for documentation.
I would pass given Sig USA's lackluster QC, they sadly ride the coat tail of their parent Sig company.
Is the lackluster qc with Sig rifles only? I have a p226 pistol that runs very well...accuracy is great. Local range has Sig pistols to rent and they are very reliable...that is all I have to go on....but was just asking about the Sig 516 rifle. I own a Colt6920 but would like to add to my rifle collections....thanks
Magic_Salad0892
07-04-12, 16:50
It's not about winning bud, it's about making sure we're sharing the right information and building our collective knowledge base.
As long as we can do that, we're all better off for it.
You're right. Later I'll go look for where I found my info regarding the cracked receivers, so that anybody else reading this thread at least knows what I'm referring to.
I remember posts from Dano, and KevinB being one of the sources, but there were others.
Well if, there is a pic of something in 2003, then you can assume that it was being designed and prototypes tested anywhere from 2000-2002.
C4
Absolutly.
I'm just asking for proof that these pics really were from 2003 is all.
I've been heavily involved in the AR15 scene since ar15.com was a majordomo mailing list. I've followed the piston development side of this since the first scuttlebutt hit the net in the 2002-2003 timeframe (that I remember) and even had my own piston design drawn up in 2003 on a couple of pieces of graph paper just for shits and giggles.
At no time do I remember Colt having a new piston design in that time frame.
Hence, that either means my memory is worse then I thought and i'd please like sinless to provide documentation and proof, or he needs to stop regurgitating everything he finds on the internet.
sinlessorrow
07-04-12, 18:04
Is the lackluster qc with Sig rifles only? I have a p226 pistol that runs very well...accuracy is great. Local range has Sig pistols to rent and they are very reliable...that is all I have to go on....but was just asking about the Sig 516 rifle. I own a Colt6920 but would like to add to my rifle collections....thanks
From what I have seen its been limited to longguns, their handguns seem to be ok.
@Arctic1 i see what your saying.
Like I said all i have is some posts one Barfcom from 2003-2004 with pictures posted there, sadly I have issues viewing them now that I am banned from that website.
But being that they are posted from that time period is all you really need.
What i will do is email Ken tonght and see if he can help me get some more solid information, because I agree solid information is best. Ill let yall know when he answers cause hes the man to ask.
You really think im just makig all this up? I posted pics of colt prototypes, do you believe they are fake as well?
A pic is a pic, prove when it was taken. That's what I asked for. Nothing more, nothing less.
I got the information about the press fit pin design from Ken Elmore and who would know better than him.
That's nice. I think there are people out there with much more experience then Ken elmore on the durability of those pins. I.E. people who have experience going back decades, not just going back to the day that Colt decided to start using them.
I'm not claiming that the pins won't work, as I have no experience with them. I'm saying that some research into fields that have used these pins for a very long time would be prudent rather then sole-sourcing your information from the company trying to sell you a product.
As far as the prototypes, i found them through google with corresponding dates, so if i find a tabbed handguard Cplt M5 picture posted in 2003 its safe to assume its from 2003, unless of coure someone went back intime and edited a 9yr old post.
I wasted many hours searching.....the closest I found was a thread on TOS dating back to december 2004. Close, but still not 2003 and still not predating the 416 even in R&D.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/214650_COLT_M5.html
And then I found the exact same pic you've posted in a threads dated 2007/2008 time frame, not 2003.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/401823_M4_vs__M5_Carbine.html
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=2&f=29&t=153409
I have found posts on BARFCOM with pictures of the tabbed M5 without delta ring posted in 2004-2005.
Not exactly 2003.
I have found posts of the monolithic LE1020 with pictures posted in 2005-2012.
See above.
I found one post with the delta ring tabbed handguard from 2003.
Prove it was from 2003.
you can say what you want, but if there are pictures of the rifles in 2004 or 2003 its safe to assume they were working on them in 2000-2004, these guns take time to make, and if they are displayed in 2003-2004 they have been in the works much longer.
Ok, so provide documentation already.
there is nothing wrong with the HK416, but its also not original. it seems to have borrowed a few things from Colt. Actually alot today came from colt, like the old 3.4x ELCANS that colt had on their ACR back in the day, or how the SOPMOD stock also came from the ACR trials and Colts gun.
This has nothing to do with what i'm asking for. You've made statements, please back them up. That's all i'm asking. Nobody is asking you to post your non-existent resume to justify an opinion, nobody is demanding that you prove status as an SME, i'm just asking you to provide proof to back up your statements. Something more then a photo with a caption that says "2003" in it.
If you can't, then perhaps you need to rethink the information that you regurgitate in forums such as this one where proof is king.
And if you want to get sand in the ol' mangina there and get upset because you feel that people aren't taking you at your word, you might want to think about that a little bit and ask yourself what you've done to earn it.
But being that they are posted from that time period is all you really need.
Ok....now this is getting ridiculous.
I'M banned from arf and I can still search for old threads using Bing/google. See my above post with arf threads dating back to 2004.
I'm getting REAL close to throwing down the bullshit flag.
sinlessorrow
07-04-12, 18:44
A pic is a pic, prove when it was taken. That's what I asked for. Nothing more, nothing less.
That's nice. I think there are people out there with much more experience then Ken elmore on the durability of those pins. I.E. people who have experience going back decades, not just going back to the day that Colt decided to start using them.
I'm not claiming that the pins won't work, as I have no experience with them. I'm saying that some research into fields that have used these pins for a very long time would be prudent rather then sole-sourcing your information from the company trying to sell you a product.
I wasted many hours searching.....the closest I found was a thread on TOS dating back to december 2004. Close, but still not 2003 and still not predating the 416 even in R&D.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/214650_COLT_M5.html
And then I found the exact same pic you've posted in a threads dated 2007/2008 time frame, not 2003.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/401823_M4_vs__M5_Carbine.html
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=2&f=29&t=153409
Not exactly 2003.
See above.
Prove it was from 2003.
Ok, so provide documentation already.
This has nothing to do with what i'm asking for. You've made statements, please back them up. That's all i'm asking. Nobody is asking you to post your non-existent resume to justify an opinion, nobody is demanding that you prove status as an SME, i'm just asking you to provide proof to back up your statements. Something more then a photo with a caption that says "2003" in it.
If you can't, then perhaps you need to rethink the information that you regurgitate in forums such as this one where proof is king.
And if you want to get sand in the ol' mangina there and get upset because you feel that people aren't taking you at your word, you might want to think about that a little bit and ask yourself what you've done to earn it.
Cute considering I havent been upset at all.
Like I said when I have time to sit down at a computer ill try to post better documentions, currently I am on my Iphone and I am not the best with it.
It's a G36'ish oprod and piston put inside an M4.
Really?
The G36 operating system is nothing more than a clone of the Armalite AR-18.
That is what a certain unit wanted in order to increase the reliability of a system that was being run suppressed on full auto, with a short barrel.
So the HK416 is a very good system in and of itself. However, that fact does not take away from the reliability or durability of the standard DI system.
Make up your mind. Is it reliable or isn't it. You have clearly acknowledged in other threads that the 10.5" HK416 has problems. I would argue that it is a complete disaster. I have personally inspected at least 20 of them that have eaten their own FCG's or upper receivers. I have posted photos of several them on this site.
Why must it be so hard to acknowledge these points? At best, your points only have subjacent anecdotal support. Is that enough why for you?
Ok.. Let's settle this.... Pull out your dicks and start measuring.
Cute considering I havent been upset at all.
The following says otherwise....
[QUOTE=sinlessorrow;1340394]You really think im just makig all this up? I posted pics of colt prototypes, do you believe they are fake as well?
Like I said when I have time to sit down at a computer ill try to post better documentions, currently I am on my Iphone and I am not the best with it.
By all means....produce something instead of expecting us to take you at your word.
Absolutly.
I'm just asking for proof that these pics really were from 2003 is all.
I've been heavily involved in the AR15 scene since ar15.com was a majordomo mailing list. I've followed the piston development side of this since the first scuttlebutt hit the net in the 2002-2003 timeframe (that I remember) and even had my own piston design drawn up in 2003 on a couple of pieces of graph paper just for shits and giggles.
At no time do I remember Colt having a new piston design in that time frame.
Hence, that either means my memory is worse then I thought and i'd please like sinless to provide documentation and proof, or he needs to stop regurgitating everything he finds on the internet.
Colt has been experimenting with op rod guns since 1967. There are few pictures and related text in both Black Rifle and Black Rifle II.
Magic_Salad0892
07-04-12, 19:34
Make up your mind. Is it reliable or isn't it. You have clearly acknowledged in other threads that the 10.5" HK416 has problems. I would argue that it is a complete disaster. I have personally inspected at least 20 of them that have eaten their own FCG's or upper receivers. I have posted photos of several them on this site.
At best, your points only have subjacent anecdotal support. Is that enough why for you?
If you can post pics, or elaborate it would be appreciated.
@MK18Pilot:
I am not familiar with the AR-18 platform, so the G36 system may well be designed from that system.
As far as the background for the development of the HK416, I am going off the history of the weapon. Am I wrong that the weapon was developed, with input from a US SMU, to provide a better platform for suppressed full auto SBR use? If so, please prove me wrong.
I do not know your work background, but from what I gather you are a gunsmith or armorer, correct?
You have seen some worn 10.5" HK416's, and you have posted one pic of a broken disconnector and one pic of a receiver extension showing signs of carrier tilt. You have inspected 20 or so guns showing signs og eating FCG's and receivers. You have made up your mind based on these experiences. That is cool with me, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I do not have an agenda, but try to provide some info on the HK416 when the issue pops up. Even if you believe otherwise.
It is true that the sheared disconnectors have occured on our short guns. It has happened to about 60 or so weapons, from units who shoot a lot. I do not know how many of our 25000 guns are 10.5" versions. It is still a small percentage of the guns, and it was an easy fix.
I can tell you that I have not seen any disconnectors break on the 16.5" guns I have seen in use, nor any sign of carrier tilt. There are very few issues due to the design.
You say that my points are subjacent anecdotes at best....aren't yours the same? Am I not capable of commenting on the gun as and end user, having actually used the system in a combat zone? SME's like Mr. Vickers and Mr. Falla have commented positively on the system as well. I am nowhere near their competency level when it comes to shooting and weapons, but I find it odd that you jump at my throat for the second time now. I have actually disclosed the issues we have had, rather than claim unsurpassed excellence.
I try to be polite, professional in my comments, and to be concise and factual about subjects I know something about. I generally try to avoid commenting on stuff I know nothing about. If I make a mistake I appreciate being corrected so I can learn, but you seem intent on bashing me just because.
My subjective opinion is that the HK416 is a reliable system. So there are a few bad eggs here and there. Is that not the case with other systems?
sinlessorrow
07-04-12, 19:51
[QUOTE=sinlessorrow;1340649]Cute considering I havent been upset at all.
The following says otherwise....
By all means....produce something instead of expecting us to take you at your word.
If it sounded as if I was mad I did not mean it to, it was an honest question.
Give me a day or two, ill see what I can scrounge up.
If I cant find any honest proof With date stamps you can raise the BS flag and people can make of it what they will.
Really?
The G36 operating system is nothing more than a clone of the Armalite AR-18.
Ok, Great way to drop into a thread and prove that you have NO clue what the **** you're talking about.
AR180 piston:
http://www.cruffler.com/AR180OperatingGroup.jpg
HK piston(the bottom one):
http://photos.imageevent.com/smglee/clt2/huge/DSCN2468.jpg
Make up your mind. Is it reliable or isn't it. You have clearly acknowledged in other threads that the 10.5" HK416 has problems. I would argue that it is a complete disaster. I have personally inspected at least 20 of them that have eaten their own FCG's or upper receivers. I have posted photos of several them on this site.
You have to be pretty dense not to understand what Arctic1 is saying. Especially when he's virtually mirroring what Larry Vickers says.
So far all you've proven to me is that you're really good at jumping into threads, making outlandish claims or ridiculous statements that you havn't even bothered thinking through, and then dissapearing when others call you out on it.
Oh yea, and a very small percentage of 10.4 416's that have broken discos, which HK came up with a fix for, does NOT equal "eaten their own FCGS". Exaggerate much?
At best, your points only have subjacent anecdotal support. Is that enough why for you?
Arctic1 is a real world end user. You're not. I trust what he says. You, not a bit. After watching some of your other performances here on M4C, I don't trust anything you say.
Colt has been experimenting with op rod guns since 1967. There are few pictures and related text in both Black Rifle and Black Rifle II.
I'm sorry, a prototype from the 60s that seems to have been based on the AK piston design that was dropped for several decades until Colt saw that HK was about to eclipse the DI design with the G36 upgrade does NOT equal "experimenting since 1967".
That statement is clearly designed to fool people into thinking that Colt was experimenting the ENTIRE time, which they were not.
That and Colts original long stroke piston (seemingly designed off of the AK) does not equal beating anybody to the punch with a short stroke system.
Fail.
If it sounded as if I was mad I did not mean it to, it was an honest question.
Fair enough.
Give me a day or two, ill see what I can scrounge up.
If I cant find any honest proof With date stamps you can raise the BS flag and people can make of it what they will.
No prob. I know what I was able to find, and none of it tracked.
Perhaps you'll find something I missed.
@MK18Pilot:
I am not familiar with the AR-18 platform, so the G36 system may well be designed from that system.
As far as the background for the development of the HK416, I am going off the history of the weapon. Am I wrong that the weapon was developed, with input from a US SMU, to provide a better platform for suppressed full auto SBR use? If so, please prove me wrong.
I do not know your work background, but from what I gather you are a gunsmith or armorer, correct?
You have seen some worn 10.5" HK416's, and you have posted one pic of a broken disconnector and one pic of a receiver extension showing signs of carrier tilt. You have inspected 20 or so guns showing signs og eating FCG's and receivers. You have made up your mind based on these experiences. That is cool with me, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I do not have an agenda, but try to provide some info on the HK416 when the issue pops up. Even if you believe otherwise.
It is true that the sheared disconnectors have occured on our short guns. It has happened to about 60 or so weapons, from units who shoot a lot. I do not know how many of our 25000 guns are 10.5" versions. It is still a small percentage of the guns, and it was an easy fix.
I can tell you that I have not seen any disconnectors break on the 16.5" guns I have seen in use, nor any sign of carrier tilt. There are very few issues due to the design.
You say that my points are subjacent anecdotes at best....aren't yours the same? Am I not capable of commenting on the gun as and end user, having actually used the system in a combat zone? SME's like Mr. Vickers and Mr. Falla have commented positively on the system as well. I am nowhere near their competency level when it comes to shooting and weapons, but I find it odd that you jump at my throat for the second time now. I have actually disclosed the issues we have had, rather than claim unsurpassed excellence.
I try to be polite, professional in my comments, and to be concise and factual about subjects I know something about. I generally try to avoid commenting on stuff I know nothing about. If I make a mistake I appreciate being corrected so I can learn, but you seem intent on bashing me just because.
My subjective opinion is that the HK416 is a reliable system. So there are a few bad eggs here and there. Is that not the case with other systems?
The "fact" of whether the HK416 is an improvement over the DI system will NEVER be settled. I'll just agree to disagree. My intent was not to come across as bashing you, apologies. 50 years of hard data on the AR-15 is hardly anecdotal. SME credibility is an issue for another day on a different forum.
I'm sorry, a prototype from the 60s that seems to have been based on the AK piston design that was dropped for several decades until Colt saw that HK was about to eclipse the DI design with the G36 upgrade does NOT equal "experimenting since 1967".
That statement is clearly designed to fool people into thinking that Colt was experimenting the ENTIRE time, which they were not.
That and Colts original long stroke piston (seemingly designed off of the AK) does not equal beating anybody to the punch with a short stroke system.
Fail.
The statement wasn't designed to fool anybody; but to believe Colt developed their current piston system with no consideration for past designs is foolish.
Ignoring the counter recoil parts, you don't see any similarity in the AR180 piston parts and the HK416 piston parts?
The "fact" of whether the HK416 is an improvement over the DI system will NEVER be settled.
That' wasn't a point of contention in this debate. Do not attempt to muddy the waters with irrelevent statements.
I'll just agree to disagree. My intent was not to come across as bashing you, apologies.
Once again, obfuscating and attempting to change the subject while trying to get me upset so that I (and everybody else) ignores your fallacies is a pretty pathetic way to stutter your way out of this.
50 years of hard data on the AR-15 is hardly anecdotal.
So you're admitting your lack of personal experience.
SME credibility is an issue for another day on a different forum.
No, actually it's not. You've made the statements here, so here is where you get to prove your statements and yourself.
Make up your mind. Is it reliable or isn't it. You have clearly acknowledged in other threads that the 10.5" HK416 has problems. I would argue that it is a complete disaster. I have personally inspected at least 20 of them that have eaten their own FCG's or upper receivers. I have posted photos of several them on this site.
Interestingly, the 10.3" HK416 was chosen by the US Army's most elite unit as a more reliable and durrable replacement for the MK18. This occurred soemthing like 8 years ago. As noted by the quote by Larry Vickers earlier in this thread, the HK416 recently beat out all possible replacements and is still in use by that unit, as well as many other units.
If the HK416 was as problematic as some people would have us believe, why is that unit still using them snd hoe did it beat out all possible contenders?
The statement wasn't designed to fool anybody; but to believe Colt developed their current piston system with no consideration for past designs is foolish.
That's a damn sight different of a statement then your original one which said that the two are an exact copy.
To quote:
Really?
The G36 operating system is nothing more than a clone of the Armalite AR-18.
Now, I don't know which dictionary you use, but the word "Clone" means an "exact copy".
Ignoring the counter recoil parts, you don't see any similarity in the AR180 piston parts and the HK416 piston parts?
Minorly. I see two different designs with very different venting/overpressure release systems. Then again, I also see them as mechanical designs, not just another way to run a gun. As short stroke piston systems, I obviously see some similarities, but not anything that screams "clone".
Remember that Eugene Stoner didn't invent the short stroke gas piston system either.
Magic_Salad0892
07-04-12, 21:15
Interestingly, the 10.3" HK416 was chosen by the US Army's most elite unit as a more reliable and durrable replacement for the MK18. This occurred soemthing like 8 years ago. As noted by the quote by Larry Vickers earlier in this thread, the HK416 recently beat out all possible replacements and is still in use by that unit, as well as many other units.
If the HK416 was as problematic as some people would have us believe, why is that unit still using them snd hoe did it beat out all possible contenders?
I think the fact that a lot of Mk. 18s (from my understanding) were worn out, and had gas port erosion slightly muddies the water.
I also wonder if the SCAR CQB was a contender, and how the 416 beat it.
sinlessorrow
07-04-12, 21:35
I think the fact that a lot of Mk. 18s (from my understanding) were worn out, and had gas port erosion slightly muddies the water.
I also wonder if the SCAR CQB was a contender, and how the 416 beat it.
I hate to say it but I would like some more clarification about the whole 416 trial recently.
I am in no way saying LAV was wrong, but we all like more clarification and sometimes statements like the HK416 beat everything by a certain group leaves alot to be desired.
we dont even know the barrel lengths tryed
I think the fact that a lot of Mk. 18s (from my understanding) were worn out, and had gas port erosion slightly muddies the water.
The "worn out" excuse always gets used try to explain when an HK416 wins a competition against other guns. Some third hand secret insider is always the source of this claim.
If you look at the original reason for the 10.3" HK416's adoption, it was because it lasted longer and ran more reliably than the MK18. If that wasn't the case, there would have been no reason for its adoption in the first place. And if the HK416 failed to do so once adopted, it would have been shitcanned years ago.
sinlessorrow
07-04-12, 22:22
The "worn out" excuse always gets used try to explain when an HK416 wins a competition against other guns. Some third hand secret insider is always the source of this claim.
If you look at the original reason for the 10.3" HK416's adoption, it was because it lasted longer and ran more reliably than the MK18. If that wasn't the case, there would have been no reason for its adoption in the first place. And if the HK416 failed to do so once adopted, it would have been shitcanned years ago.
thats exactly why the HK416 was adopted, because at the time MK18's were not doing well.
we have actually learned alot about how to make the DI MK18 run since then. so it is a more reliable unit than it used to be, but i still feel the HK416 is better in that respect.
Usually when you see the MK18 or HK416 it generally always has a suppressor, and a suppressed SBR is where the HK416 shines.
OK I talked to my friend about the M5 here
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/869/m5xu7.png
according to him(no i wont mention his name) it was a tool run gun done in 2003-2004, it was designed shortly before the HK416 but never made it out of the prototype stages, the LE1020 is actually the M5. the name on the tag was a miss label.
IMO the whole tabbed upper to handguard idea sounds to me to be more like great minds think alike.
Heavy Metal
07-04-12, 22:29
That's a damn sight different of a statement then your original one which said that the two are an exact copy.
To quote:
Now, I don't know which dictionary you use, but the word "Clone" means an "exact copy".
Minorly. I see two different designs with very different venting/overpressure release systems. Then again, I also see them as mechanical designs, not just another way to run a gun. As short stroke piston systems, I obviously see some similarities, but not anything that screams "clone".
Remember that Eugene Stoner didn't invent the short stroke gas piston system either.
SVT-38/40.
according to him(no i wont mention his name) it was a tool run gun done in 2003-2004, it was designed shortly before the HK416 but never made it out of the prototype stages, the LE1020 is actually the M5. the name on the tag was a miss label.
According to Larry Vickers who was part of the HK416 project, the project began in 2001. If you look at the bottom half of the page linked below you will find an article by Larry in gray text against a white background. You will likley have to highlight the text with your cursor to make it more readible.
http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80:hk416&catid=8:the-automatic-rifles&Itemid=5
In the article, he points out that his "former Unit had been searching for an M4 style carbine that was smaller and more maneuverable in confined spaces. This has been an ongoing effort to some degree ever since we had gone from MP5’s to M4’s. A lot of money had been spent on testing every short barreled AR style weapon we could find. At the end of the day we came to the conclusion that none of them answered our needs."
sinlessorrow
07-04-12, 23:42
According to Larry Vickers who was part of the HK416 project, the project began in 2001. If you look at the bottom half of the page linked below you will find an article by Larry in gray text against a white background. You will likley have to highlight the text with your cursor to make it more readible.
http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80:hk416&catid=8:the-automatic-rifles&Itemid=5
In the article, he points out that his "former Unit had been searching for an M4 style carbine that was smaller and more maneuverable in confined spaces. This has been an ongoing effort to some degree ever since we had gone from MP5’s to M4’s. A lot of money had been spent on testing every short barreled AR style weapon we could find. At the end of the day we came to the conclusion that none of them answered our needs."
cant argue with that, the MK18 is certainly a finicky system to say the least.
I think current run models of the MK18 are more reliable than the MK18's of 2001 but they are still not as good as the HK416 in the 10.4" package.
there is a guy on arfcom who was issued MK18 using the Block II package and had no issues as well as being issued 6.5" suppressed M4's, now that was an interesting gun.
I'm of the mind that Vickers statements regarding the evolution of the HK M4 trump Colts attempts at making a modern piston gun.
sinlessorrow
07-05-12, 03:06
I'm of the mind that Vickers statements regarding the evolution of the HK M4 trump Colts attempts at making a modern piston gun.
I could see that if we even knew the 6940P was tested.
from what I have seen aside for the Civilian world the only 6940P's being tested were in the IC.
as to the part in red, you wanted me to show proof of dates of things made so I posted a snipit of an emial from my buddy, the tabbed upper was made in 2003-2004(so did that come before or after the HK416 was re designed from the HKM4 IDC, maybe taht happend at the same time periods), now where is your proof that the HKM4 beat out every attempt of colt and their piston design, cause thats a bigger statement than me saying dates.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-05-12, 03:33
[QUOTELooks familiar huh?[/QUOTE]
Haha it sure does... That's very insetting about the M5, thanks for the pics, I saved them in to an AR pic file on my MacBook.
I could see that if we even knew the 6940P was tested.
from what I have seen aside for the Civilian world the only 6940P's being tested were in the IC.
as to the part in red, you wanted me to show proof of dates of things made so I posted a snipit of an emial from my buddy, the tabbed upper was made in 2003-2004(so did that come before or after the HK416 was re designed from the HKM4 IDC, maybe taht happend at the same time periods), now where is your proof that the HKM4 beat out every attempt of colt and their piston design, cause thats a bigger statement than me saying dates.
You're a member of HKPro, go read Vickers explination of the HK M4 timeline yourself. It's right there bud.
http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80:hk416&catid=8:the-automatic-rifles&Itemid=5
2003/2004 for Colt only means that they started R&D sometime prior to the production release date of the 416, not the 416's inception.
I already explained this via PM.
You've provided zero proof that Colt managed to design or manufacture anything prior to HK and your claims simply aren't good enough. Sorry, you don't have the background or contacts on the inside that would warrant anyone taking you at face value.
Release the entire email with your contacts name and that will at least let us know that you're legitimatly in contact with someone at Colt. But that still won't provide proof that Colt started R&D as early as 2001.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-05-12, 03:49
You seem like a decent dude trying to pass your experience and knowledge to others, but you are coming across negatively and in several instances are incorrect in your absolute statements.
You need to take a step or two back, reevaluate your approach and check your facts.
Thanks, but i have no ill intentions here, i'm simply representing my opinion, which is what makes M4C & the gun community as a whole so great, there is no one train of thought, i'm glad others disagree with me, as I disagree with others. My knowledge & opinion can only go as far as my milage with a specific platform, others milage may vary, as it should. As for checking facts, I have IF I was misinformed by a reliable representative of LWRCi, in order to better their name, then correct me if i'm wrong.
Hungarian_Legionnaire
07-05-12, 04:02
Apparently you don't have much trigger time with the AR platform. Most of us who actually shoot have come to find out that the weapon will continue to run as long as it keeps wet (lubed).
Apparently huh? Thats cute "most of use who actually shoot", as if you know my shooting schedule & trigger time with my AR's... :lol: I hope you reply to THIS with another joke, you're great.
HK was about to eclipse the DI design
it's phrases like this that expose your bias and make all your caterwauling of "prove it" rather meaningless. You sound like a little kid with your fingers jammed in your ears and your eyes scrunched up tight screaming "NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH..."
You don't actually want anyone to prove anything, you just want people with versions of events and opinions that don't already match what you think you know to shut up and go away.
This thread went from pointless to meaningless to useless real quick.
Well, bias is a very natural occurrence. Especially when it comes to firearms.
Some people claim Glocks are the best, some people claim AK's are the best, some people claim <insert favorite AR brand here> is the best.
Very few people discuss these issues devoid of emotion and bias. Take myself for example, I cannot fully grasp the percieved difference between a piston AR and DI AR, seeing as I do not have any real grounds for comparison. I have not used a DI system to the same extent as many here. My previous gun was a G3, a totally different system all together. My comments relate to the HK416 isolatedly speaking.
You recently asked how to quantify what shooters define as better when it comes to guns. How is asking for documentation in ordet to back up statements made in this thread any different?
Disagree on subject matter, but ad hominem comments should be unneccessary.
sinlessorrow
07-05-12, 11:12
You're a member of HKPro, go read Vickers explination of the HK M4 timeline yourself. It's right there bud.
http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80:hk416&catid=8:the-automatic-rifles&Itemid=5
2003/2004 for Colt only means that they started R&D sometime prior to the production release date of the 416, not the 416's inception.
I already explained this via PM.
You've provided zero proof that Colt managed to design or manufacture anything prior to HK and your claims simply aren't good enough. Sorry, you don't have the background or contacts on the inside that would warrant anyone taking you at face value.
Release the entire email with your contacts name and that will at least let us know that you're legitimatly in contact with someone at Colt. But that still won't provide proof that Colt started R&D as early as 2001.
thats fine you can raise the BS flag if you want, but I will not provide my friends name, I promised I wouldn't and I am not going to break that promise just to appease your wants and desires.
besides at this point I highly doubt even if I had date stamped pictures from LAV himself you would believe me, im sure you would say something like they are photo shopped or something.
The Knuckle
07-05-12, 15:36
Well, bias is a very natural occurrence. Especially when it comes to firearms.
Some people claim Glocks are the best, some people claim AK's are the best, some people claim <insert favorite AR brand here> is the best.
Very few people discuss these issues devoid of emotion and bias. Take myself for example, I cannot fully grasp the percieved difference between a piston AR and DI AR, seeing as I do not have any real grounds for comparison. I have not used a DI system to the same extent as many here. My previous gun was a G3, a totally different system all together. My comments relate to the HK416 isolatedly speaking.
You recently asked how to quantify what shooters define as better when it comes to guns. How is asking for documentation in ordet to back up statements made in this thread any different?
Disagree on subject matter, but ad hominem comments should be unneccessary.
I don't think this thread went to pointless and meaningless because there really is some interesting info. Artic1 is right on point where the thread drifted.
it's phrases like this that expose your bias and make all your caterwauling of "prove it" rather meaningless. You sound like a little kid with your fingers jammed in your ears and your eyes scrunched up tight screaming "NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH..."
So rather then focus on the dates and facts, you'd rather cherry pick a single sentence within several pages of a conversation and start spewing your own koolaid.
Hello Pot, meet Kettle.
I find it amusing that since nobody can provide any proof to back up the claims, you instead choose to accuse me of not wanting to accept the information as a child would who didn't want to eat their vegetables. So can YOU back up the claims? Or are you just here to snipe and run?
I was under the impression that this is a website devoted to technical knowledge, where facts mattered. You're above statement seems to be trying to tell me that we should accept blindly rather then verify. Is this correct? Or is it you showing your own bias in the fact that you don't like HK and because someone (me) is questioning your ideals of Colt superiority, you feel the need to lash out?
You don't actually want anyone to prove anything, you just want people with versions of events and opinions that don't already match what you think you know to shut up and go away.
Don't even begin to second guess me. I've made my questions very clear and if you of all people are incapable of understanding the requests because your vision is clouded by your own biases, then stfu.
This thread went from pointless to meaningless to useless real quick.
And you've done nothing to help it, and are now part of the problem.
Tell us again why you decided to grace such a meaningless thread with even more pointless garbage? Or is it "special" and meaningful because it's your garbage?
Get over yourself and either join the convo appropriatly or get out.
thats fine you can raise the BS flag if you want, but I will not provide my friends name, I promised I wouldn't and I am not going to break that promise just to appease your wants and desires.
besides at this point I highly doubt even if I had date stamped pictures from LAV himself you would believe me, im sure you would say something like they are photo shopped or something.
Sorry dude. You bit off more then you can chew this time. It's easy to simply readback info you found on the internet with little to no first hand experience and seem like you know what you're talking about, but unfortunatly the internet is wrong sometimes. Not only that but your supposed contact at Colt still hasn't verified any of your claims and you refuse to vette your source. Not only that but even the information that you shared that supposedly came from this person at Colt STILL doesn't back up your initial statements.
If that's how you are going to conduct yourself, please don't be suprised when nobody takes you seriously.
I've seen you run this same MO on other sites and it will only get you so far until a situation like this where you end up stepping on your dick.
I wish it weren't so as you seem like a nice enough guy, but there's that whole "stay in your lane" thing that you seem to have forgotten.
Personally, I don't claim to be an expert about much of anything, but I do not mind sharing my own personal experiences and if I have third hand info, I make it very clear that's exactly what it is up front rather then demanding that people take me at my word as if it were MY information. I'm also willing to go and gain personal experience and share it with others, such as my recent parts compatibility tests with the 416 and DI parts.
Live and learn bud.
justin_247
07-05-12, 20:41
This thread has become ridiculous... it's nothing but arguments about differences in hardware.
What you all miss is that, in a firefight, if you have an HK416/Colt 6940P/SCAR/ACR that you've barely trained with, you're still going to get smoked by somebody who has trained hard with an Olympic Arms AR. Your super sexy plasma rifle ain't gonna save you.
This thread has become ridiculous... it's nothing but arguments about differences in hardware.
Yes, it's a discussion about the Colt 6940P that has morphed into a discussion about piston ARs.
What you all miss is that, in a firefight, if you have an HK416/Colt 6940P/SCAR/ACR that you've barely trained with, you're still going to get smoked by somebody who has trained hard with an Olympic Arms AR. Your super sexy plasma rifle ain't gonna save you.
I haven't seen anyone in this thread make this claim, thus your point, though true, is irrelevant to the thread. It has the same relevance as going into a Glock or M&P thread and pointing out that without training and awareness you can get smoked by some punk with a Hipoint.
sinlessorrow
07-05-12, 21:32
Sorry dude. You bit off more then you can chew this time. It's easy to simply readback info you found on the internet with little to no first hand experience and seem like you know what you're talking about, but unfortunatly the internet is wrong sometimes. Not only that but your supposed contact at Colt still hasn't verified any of your claims and you refuse to vette your source. Not only that but even the information that you shared that supposedly came from this person at Colt STILL doesn't back up your initial statements.
If that's how you are going to conduct yourself, please don't be suprised when nobody takes you seriously.
I've seen you run this same MO on other sites and it will only get you so far until a situation like this where you end up stepping on your dick.
I wish it weren't so as you seem like a nice enough guy, but there's that whole "stay in your lane" thing that you seem to have forgotten.
Personally, I don't claim to be an expert about much of anything, but I do not mind sharing my own personal experiences and if I have third hand info, I make it very clear that's exactly what it is up front rather then demanding that people take me at my word as if it were MY information. I'm also willing to go and gain personal experience and share it with others, such as my recent parts compatibility tests with the 416 and DI parts.
Live and learn bud.
So I should just give out my friend who spoke under anonymity to settle your mind? sorry I dont know you and I dont trust you enough to give out my friends name.
Like I said, the design predates the HK416. that is all I said, I never said HK416 is a piece of crap(you seem to be taking this very personally) or that DI was the best, I actually kept this strictly related to the 6940P.
I sent you the response I got from my friend, He mentions the Prototype predates the HK416 but not by much, the prototype was first made in 2003(with I am sure years of of working on it before hand since these things dont happen overnight).
you can say I run this MO everywhere but I dont really think that is true, I have kept honest on this website and you called me out so I emailed my friend at Colt, now that I wont tell you his name(I did promise not to name him) you still say I have no proof.
I'm done with this topic, at this point it has gone so far off the OP its ridiculous.
This thread has become ridiculous... it's nothing but arguments about differences in hardware.
What you all miss is that, in a firefight, if you have an HK416/Colt 6940P/SCAR/ACR that you've barely trained with, you're still going to get smoked by somebody who has trained hard with an Olympic Arms AR. Your super sexy plasma rifle ain't gonna save you.
Gee, thanks for stating the obvious. I guess that no one here ever thought of that. Your shining insight is an example to us all.
Because of course nobody here EVER trains on their guns, puts rounds downrange with a purpose, and learns to use their tools as they were meant to be used.
And here I thought this was an airsoft website meant only to discuss the theory behind how guns work because none of us can afford to get off the xbox, leave mommys basement, and go get the real thing.........
You got any more gems to add to this conversation?
So I should just give out my friend who spoke under anonymity to settle your mind? sorry I dont know you and I dont trust you enough to give out my friends name.
Like I said, don't expect to be taken seriously then. That's YOUR choice.
Like I said, the design predates the HK416. that is all I said, I never said HK416 is a piece of crap(you seem to be taking this very personally) or that DI was the best, I actually kept this strictly related to the 6940P.
And you've provided no proof of any of that. It's easy to make claims, and when correct, easy to back them up. You've made the claims but can't/refuse to back them up. That's your CHOICE. If you can't/won't, then don't expect people to trust you. It's pretty simple.
Nobody is picking on you, i'm merely saying that without valid proof, you've got nothing and have given us no reason to believe a word you've typed. This is the internet. There are bullshitters everywhere. This is why on professional based sites such as this one, you have to earn your way, not just be accepted. If you want that, go hang on the airsoft sites. They'll believe anyone.
I sent you the response I got from my friend, He mentions the Prototype predates the HK416 but not by much, the prototype was first made in 2003(with I am sure years of of working on it before hand since these things dont happen overnight).
You sent a little snippet with no names, etc. and you expect me to believe it? Seriously dude, you need to do better then that. And, like I said, the dates given STILL don't substantiate your claims vs. Vickers writeup on HKPro regarding the timeline of the HK M4.
Really, it's not that difficult to understand.
you can say I run this MO everywhere but I dont really think that is true, I have kept honest on this website and you called me out so I emailed my friend at Colt, now that I wont tell you his name(I did promise not to name him) you still say I have no proof.
I didn't call you out....yet. I merely asked for proof and you still have yet to provide it. I did say that I was close to calling BS on you, and if you keep this up, well, unfortunatly your current choice of action has explained everything that anybody needs to know.
I know a lot of folks don't like my delivery, but that still doesn't change the fact that you waltzed in this thread with your dick in your hand and got it slammed in the door because you can't prove your statements. People can be mad at me all day long because I come across as an ass, but that still doesn't change the fact that you're the one spouting crap you can't back up. I'm a dick, but i'm an honest dick and I can be counted on to be consistent and when I do **** up, I admit it.
How you purport yourself is up to you, but you're not doing yourself any favors right now dude.
And yes, you do this on every site i've seen you on. Go get some real experience and stop regurgitatine what you read on the internet.
I'm done with this topic, at this point it has gone so far off the OP its ridiculous.
Of course. Get your pee-pee slapped for spewing BS, manufacture some indignation and rage-quit. Can't say i'm suprised.
That all being said, can ANYONE help clear this question as to when Colt actually started their current Piston design work?
All purse swinging aside, I'd really like to know (with verification).
If Colt truly started before HK, that's cool, I don't really care (a point that some refuse to understand). But the numbers given simply don't jive and I like to know facts, not conjecture.
If one doesn't want to dime out one's friends, one should have the sense to keep one's gob shut.
...and here I thought "All My Children" got canceled.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.