View Full Version : Remove Colt sear block
I have a Colt big hole lower with a sear block. I'd like to remove the sear block install a Geissele trigger. Any pointers.
Stretz Tactical Inc
01-09-08, 12:56
You can't. In the Colt armorers course they advised that it is "blind pinned" and held in place by a blind spring and detent. They say that it was designed to destroy the reciever if you try too remove it. You should be able to change the trigger w/o removing it - by design. Although I am not familiar with the trigger you are talking about. Hope this helps.
You can't. In the Colt armorers course they advised that it is "blind pinned" and held in place by a blind spring and detent. They say that it was designed to destroy the reciever if you try too remove it.
:eek: Good God! How stupid.
Here is a link to the, "go very very slowly", at home version, from another site...
http://www.quarterbore.net/forums/showthread.php?t=184
Interesting link. I can't believe how overboard Colt went with this nonsense.
is this a design to keep people from "modifying" their weapon into an illegal type?
Thanks for posting that link Buck, I have an early 90's 20" A2 that I need to have the block removed.
I would like to have it professionally done.
One of the more asinine things Colt did in the past. I have an LEO marked Govt Carbine with the dang thing in place. SAW will remove them, but I don't know what the cost is.
I know there are a lot of Colt fans here, but this is the kind of thing that makes me not want to buy Colt EVER! LMT or Noveske for me...thank you very much! Not tier 1? I'll get by.
The_Biased_Observer
01-10-08, 00:47
I have a SBR I need to have the sear block removed, or at least cut to allow a 16 carrier. Drives me nuts.
The sear block was a preemptive strike by Colt in an effort to avoid both anti-firearm legislation in Congress and product liability law suits... The block was designed as an integral part of the lower receiver to prevent any factory full auto parts, to include the bolt carrier from working in the rifle... Additionally where it was positioned with an oversize pin, it was designed to prevent the drilling of the receiver for the auto sear... Combine that with a oversize front take down pin and a oversize fire control group, and you have a receiver that is very hard to convert to full auto with military m-16 parts...
I believe several AR smiths offer to remover the block and machine some type of filler for a small fee... At the same time they can drill the front take down pin if needed too...
Just my .02
And since the thread has already drifted into "why"....
Colt got a huge bailout from the Conneticut state legislature, but with the caveat that Colt not sell "assault rifles" to civillians.
That's the period after 1989 where they removed the bayonet lug from the rifles and started putting the block in there, when the "green box" became a "blue box", and the name changed from AR-15 to Colt Sporter.
They could then go and tell the state legislature that they no longer sold "assault rifles" to civillians.
They haven't put this awful steel sear block in their rifles for at least 10 years.
I know there are a lot of Colt fans here, but this is the kind of thing that makes me not want to buy Colt EVER! LMT or Noveske for me...thank you very much! Not tier 1? I'll get by.
Your LMT and Noveske is also blocked.
I know there are a lot of Colt fans here, but this is the kind of thing that makes me not want to buy Colt EVER! LMT or Noveske for me...thank you very much! Not tier 1? I'll get by.
This type of sear block is no longer used in Colt's ARs. They stopped using it ten years ago...
Your LMT and Noveske is also blocked.
Although blocked in the sense that they will not accept full auto parts without removing quite a bit of material, I am sure that you know the the block that they use does not prevent the use of a FA BCG or a after market two stage trigger like the early Colt sear block does...
This type of sear block is no longer used in Colt's ARs. They stopped using it ten years ago...
Although blocked in the sense that they will not accept full auto parts without removing quite a bit of material, I am sure that you know the the block that they use does not prevent the use of a FA BCG or a after market two stage trigger like the early Colt sear block does...
That is true but if you just want to use a FA carrier, then you can just remove the top piece of the block.
As far as the match trigger, IMO nobody needs one in a fighting gun. That has always been my position and always will be.
When someone brings up the RDIAS issue, they completely lose all credibility on any AR15 subject as far as I'm concerned.
There are plenty of Colt lowers that do not have a pinned in block which can be used for a match trigger.
People hype this into some big dramatic issue where there is no issue.
Just buy an LMT and avoid all the Colt issues completely.
Just buy an LMT and avoid all the Colt issues completely.
Just so we are clear... At the time that Colt was making AR-15 Sporters with hardened steel sear blocks, LMT was not even producing an AR style semi-auto rifle for civilian sales...
They ceased the practice ten years ago...
The currently produced Colt's, LMT's, & Noveske's, are all manufactured with extra material, call it a block if you will, in their lower receivers... That is how they can feel safe using a M-16 BCG, because without significant machining, the parts necessary for full automatic fire, will not fit into the lower receiver...
If you are looking for an very high quality newly manufactured rifle, Colt's, LMT's, & Noveske's will all fit the bill nicely...
Buck
How did we get this far off track ???
Just buy an LMT and avoid all the Colt issues completely.
You aren't "avoiding all the issues" with a LMT as it is blocked to prevent the use of a RDIAS.
But a stripped lower w/o this feature. For the $$ spent, and then you'll have two lowers, better deal.
New York resident, preban
PALADIN-hgwt
01-11-08, 17:47
xxxxx
anything you say.
What is wrong with this situation is some people will bitch and moan about how Colt is infringing on their 2nd Amendment rights with this block, yet in the same breath, they tell us how good their LMT, Armalite, RRA, etc lower is.
If you buy a lower with a block, the Colt block is better for removal than a high self. The factory aluminum and anodizing remains untouched.
The only people who have a somewhat of a legitimate gripe are those who live in a ban state and are making a precision gun and need to install a match trigger.
What is wrong with this situation is some people will bitch and moan about how Colt is infringing on their 2nd Amendment rights with this block, yet in the same breath, they tell us how good their LMT, Armalite, RRA, etc lower is.
If you buy a lower with a block, the Colt block is better for removal than a high self. The factory aluminum and anodizing remains untouched.
The only people who have a somewhat of a legitimate gripe are those who live in a ban state and are making a precision gun and need to install a match trigger.
I'll try to remember that when I'm buying off the shelf trigger pins for my non-Colt lower.
Colt generally makes good M16 parts but their lowers suck for a number of reasons. I avoid them.
I'll try to remember that when I'm buying off the shelf trigger pins for my non-Colt lower.
Colt generally makes good M16 parts but their lowers suck for a number of reasons. I avoid them.
Again, large trigger/hammer pins are widely available for every type of trigger. You are making an issue out of a non issue.
I don't like the large pins or sear block either but this issue is way overblown.
Nobody gets on Olympic for not milling selector stops. Nobody gets on LMT, RRA, or Armalite for high self lowers.
The_Biased_Observer
01-12-08, 18:01
I'm fairly certain the RRA large pin 2 stage trigger also fits.
Paladin
I have in my my Sporter Lightweight formerly 7.62x39 lower, Fits.
Again, large trigger/hammer pins are widely available for every type of trigger. You are making an issue out of a non issue.
I don't like the large pins or sear block either but this issue is way overblown.
Nobody gets on Olympic for not milling selector stops. Nobody gets on LMT, RRA, or Armalite for high self lowers.
Scott, honestly...you are right. For a guy like me, it's really moxnix either way. If I am truly honest with myself, the primary reason I steer clear of Colt is political. I guess I haven't forgotten the way I felt about this issue in the nineties. I suppose I should move on.:D
I'll tell you what, if I was Colt's, after all the financial woes they have had, I would do everything possible to reduce my liability profile in this political climate.
Scott, honestly...you are right. For a guy like me, it's really moxnix either way. If I am truly honest with myself, the primary reason I steer clear of Colt is political. I guess I haven't forgotten the way I felt about this issue in the nineties. I suppose I should move on.:D
I'll tell you what, if I was Colt's, after all the financial woes they have had, I would do everything possible to reduce my liability profile in this political climate.
:rolleyes:
What do they do that you don't like?
Why?
And since the thread has already drifted into "why"....
Colt got a huge bailout from the Conneticut state legislature, but with the caveat that Colt not sell "assault rifles" to civillians.
That's the period after 1989 where they removed the bayonet lug from the rifles and started putting the block in there, when the "green box" became a "blue box", and the name changed from AR-15 to Colt Sporter.
They could then go and tell the state legislature that they no longer sold "assault rifles" to civillians.
They haven't put this awful steel sear block in their rifles for at least 10 years.
I owned one of those "blue box" abominations for less than 24hrs. I returned it the next day when I realized that something wasn't right about it.
Again, for me, it goes back to the political climate of the nineties. I'm not over it yet. I'm one of those that bitches and moans about it rather than just accepting it. The exception is, I have no illusions about Colt's being of high quality, and I have no need to talk about how my LMT compares to Colt nor do I drink the LMT Kool Aid. I simply have a bad taste in my mouth about Colt's decision to make a different gun for me, the American citizen, than they make for the U.S. Gov't. However irrational that may seem, it's just how I feel.
Colt's are top shelf. I wish I could own one and feel good about it...but I just don't. I'd rather give my money to a guy like John Noveske who isn't going out of his way to please the politicians and lawyers.
This is chat, so I'll just leave it there.
Robb Jensen
01-17-08, 05:12
IIRC only Colts Manufacturing rifles ever had 'the block', I've never seen one on a Colt Defense rifle. YMMV.
IIRC only Colts Manufacturing rifles ever had 'the block', I've never seen one on a Colt Defense rifle. YMMV.
That is because when Colts defense was created, they had moved to the web style block.
Why?
Originally Posted by Templar View Post
And since the thread has already drifted into "why"....
Colt got a huge bailout from the Conneticut state legislature, but with the caveat that Colt not sell "assault rifles" to civillians.
That's the period after 1989 where they removed the bayonet lug from the rifles and started putting the block in there, when the "green box" became a "blue box", and the name changed from AR-15 to Colt Sporter.
They could then go and tell the state legislature that they no longer sold "assault rifles" to civillians.
They haven't put this awful steel sear block in their rifles for at least 10 years.
I owned one of those "blue box" abominations for less than 24hrs. I returned it the next day when I realized that something wasn't right about it.
Again, for me, it goes back to the political climate of the nineties. I'm not over it yet. I'm one of those that bitches and moans about it rather than just accepting it. The exception is, I have no illusions about Colt's being of high quality, and I have no need to talk about how my LMT compares to Colt nor do I drink the LMT Kool Aid. I simply have a bad taste in my mouth about Colt's decision to make a different gun for me, the American citizen, than they make for the U.S. Gov't. However irrational that may seem, it's just how I feel.
Colt's are top shelf. I wish I could own one and feel good about it...but I just don't. I'd rather give my money to a guy like John Noveske who isn't going out of his way to please the politicians and lawyers.
This is chat, so I'll just leave it there.
The green label/blue label argument is BS and really discredits anyone in serious circles.
Green label guns suck. Why would you take an obsolete slabside lower with a proprietary front pivot pin over a blue label gun that has a full feature lower? You have to fool around with the front pin whenever you want to service your gun. What about the sear block in the upper on a green label gun? Do you even know about that?
On the other hand, the blue label lower has a sear block to prevent the use of a RDIAS, which most people don't own anyway.
Trying to twist this in any other fashion is anti Colt spin.
I don't like sear blocks either but what about all the other companies that block their lower?
Noveske is a custom shop and cannot be compared to Colt.
That is because when Colts defense was created, they had moved to the web style block.
That's what I was thinking. The defense division is less than 10 years old because my LE colt I got during the middle of the ban isn't marked "Colt Defense".
The block thing was a 70s/80s thing wasn't it?
The pinned steel block went from 1989 to 1997.
Colts Defense was founded in 2002.
Robb Jensen
01-17-08, 12:49
So if you want a Colt and don't like the block then buy a Colt Defense rifle and be done with it. ;)
What is understood doesn't need to be discussed.
The quarterbore article is very interesting but my Colt is different than the one picture, instead of one hole on the right side it has two large holes, one on each side. How do you remove that block and keep those holes closed?
threefeathers
11-27-08, 22:12
Yes it can easilly be machined out by a competant smith. Bernie Morrison of Morrison Precision in Sierra Vista can do it in 5 minutes, then put in a Timney trigger in another 5 minutes.
XXXBadd DaddyXXX
11-27-08, 23:12
I have a hard time beliving that all this is over a trigger instal, so if you just "have" to have a wepon that can be F/A then take a dremel to the secondary sear, get an m16 carrier and a buffer that will slow the cycle somewhat.
Then when you get caught with it you can do 5 years on a FFV. :D
Army Chief
11-28-08, 01:55
No offense, but I find it rather disingenuous that anyone would seriously attempt to bad-mouth Colt over these pinned lowers, considering that this issue was put to bed well over ten years ago. It also conveniently overlooks the fact that (a) these rifles were still perfectly functional, (b) the rest of the AR market was utter garbage during the same time period, and (c) the entire industry was under assault at the time, meaning that Colt was simply trying to weather a political storm that threatened to put their civil sales under entirely. Odd that no one seems to recall the so-called "betrayals" of S&W or other manufacturers back in the same era.
This just strikes me as one of those instances where we are looking for a reason to take offense, rather than truly examining the pros and cons of the offending lowers. I dare say that with the exception of some assemblers and machinists, most of the people associated with the decisions that Colt made back then have long since been replaced, anyway. To suggest that we should not support the company now because of something they did in the 90s -- that enabled them to continue selling us rifles -- is to miss the forest for the trees. Sounds to me like a case where too much internet psychobabble and idle gun shop chatter has led to some oversimplified and reactionary thinking, as these pinned/blocked lowers are not really that much of a problem.
Don't want your Hartford lowers? Put them up for sale and see just how badly the rest of the shooting public hates them, too. Most guys loathe them so much that they will pay you a steep premium just to make sure they get pulled off of the market.
Or something like that. ;)
Chief
Scattergun
11-28-08, 08:15
A Bridgeport milling machine and a carbide endmill will make short work of it in no time.
OldNavyGuy
11-28-08, 09:15
A Bridgeport milling machine and a carbide endmill will make short work of it in no time.
this is the very best advice anyone has offered and it needs to be empathized !!
A Bridgeport milling machine and a carbide endmill will make short work of it in no time.
find a competent machine shop, show the mill operator what you want and in 5 minutes or less that block is GONE !!
No offense, but I find it rather disingenuous that anyone would seriously attempt to bad-mouth Colt over these pinned lowers, considering that this issue was put to bed well over ten years ago. It also conveniently overlooks the fact that (a) these rifles were still perfectly functional, (b) the rest of the AR market was utter garbage during the same time period, and (c) the entire industry was under assault at the time, meaning that Colt was simply trying to weather a political storm that threatened to put their civil sales under entirely. Odd that no one seems to recall the so-called "betrayals" of S&W or other manufacturers back in the same era.
This just strikes me as one of those instances where we are looking for a reason to take offense, rather than truly examining the pros and cons of the offending lowers. I dare say that with the exception of some assemblers and machinists, most of the people associated with the decisions that Colt made back then have long since been replaced, anyway. To suggest that we should not support the company now because of something they did in the 90s -- that enabled them to continue selling us rifles -- is to miss the forest for the trees. Sounds to me like a case where too much internet psychobabble and idle gun shop chatter has led to some oversimplified and reactionary thinking, as these pinned/blocked lowers are not really that much of a problem.
Don't want your Hartford lowers? Put them up for sale and see just how badly the rest of the shooting public hates them, too. Most guys loathe them so much that they will pay you a steep premium just to make sure they get pulled off of the market.
Or something like that. ;)
Chief
Reposted so this sinks in.
my65swede@yahoo.com
11-29-08, 01:51
That's one thing I like about the Anvil Arms lower. It's wide open-100% milspec.
packinheavy
11-29-08, 11:51
Reposted so this sinks in.
I recently purchased a 9mm Lightweight Sporter lower for a SBR build. I paid a premium for it since it was a Colt. I am not a Colt Koolaid drinker but I really prefer my SBRs to be built on Colt lowers using as many Colt parts as possible. I guess I am weird that way. My other guns just have to have a MPC bolt and chrome lined 1/7 barrel.
The lower has one of the blocks with two pins and it didn't even factor into the purchase. If I really want to get rid of it, I will take it to a friend who is a gunsmith and he will make short work of it.
I was worried more about the fact the lower uses the two piece pivot pin than anything else. I will get it drilled for a standard one sooner or later. :)
Six Feet Under
09-30-10, 21:34
Disregard, please delete.
digger4065
09-30-10, 22:18
I had ADCO remove the sear block on my Colt lower so that I could use a FA Carrier. I sent the lower to them. They did an excelent job. It was back in about a week the cost was 50 plus return shipping.
Just to be sure, my Colt is the type that looks like it wasn't finished being milled (metal left in place). So am I able to use a M16 bolt carrier? I'm asking because it came with one of Colts bolts that the bottom half of the rear is milled off.
Thanks
Captain_America
10-01-10, 21:33
This thread reminds me of folks who are still bent out of shape because of the Bill Ruger/Hi cap magazine issue. The way I see it is, Bill Ruger is dead. Move on. Just my $.02. Continue.
Beat Trash
10-02-10, 13:17
Just to be sure, my Colt is the type that looks like it wasn't finished being milled (metal left in place). So am I able to use a M16 bolt carrier? I'm asking because it came with one of Colts bolts that the bottom half of the rear is milled off.
Thanks
Yes, you can use a FA bolt carrier. My newest Colt 6920 has this type of lower and was shipped with a FA bolt carrier.
BoyScout4Life
08-01-15, 14:59
I would like to have it professionally done.
Me 2! I shake from coffee comsumption......
Congrats, you revived a post that is over 7 years old, and has been active in almost 5 years. You win.
Me 2! I shake from coffee comsumption......
Interesting topic .
I've been considering putting a better trigger on my older 6920 and
never even considered this issue .
I don't have the block , but there's an extra section of aluminum
that wasn't machined out of the lower . It's also one of the very
last Colts made with the larger trigger pin .
I REALLY wish the ALG ACT was available for large
pin lowers .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.