PDA

View Full Version : Colt is Tier 1, LMT?



BrianXD
09-19-06, 17:40
Colt seems to be considered one of the best manufactures. One of the best but not perfect.

How does LMT compare? Seems I can get a complete LM for about $1015 with enhanced bolt. Colts are nearly impossible to find, but seem to be more than that used.

rob_s
09-19-06, 18:42
I would pass on the "enhanced" and go with a CMT MPI M16 bolt. Otherwise LMT are generally good to go. I would call them tier 1.5, either that or LMT and BCM are the new tier 2 and BM, RRA, etc. have been bumped to tier 3.

BrianXD
09-19-06, 20:16
Thanks I thought M16 parts were illegal? did I miss something?

M4arc
09-19-06, 21:07
It's perfectly legal to run an M16 bolt carrier.

I have a 16" LMT M4 and I hope to pick up a Colt LE6920 within the next few weeks (hopefully) so I'll run a little side by side comparison complete with photos for you.

However, I've been completely satisfied with all three of my LMTs including my little 10.5" which has been 100% reliable from day one. I have no complains with any of my LMTs but I still want a Colt...just because :D

nyeti
09-19-06, 22:21
While I am generally a Colt snob, I do have two LMT MRP's with LMT lowers. They have been very reliable with very high round counts. I am also running standard LMT bolt groups in both as well. I would say the actions on the Defender lowers and the bolt groups are not wuite as smooth as my Colts, they are far from bad. LMT gets a thumbs up from me, and would definately be one of my top choices if a Colt was not available.

AR-15A3
09-20-06, 00:12
I've been a Colt user for a long time (35 years) but now I have both Colt AR6721 and LMT Defender 2000 16" with LMT M16 BCG.

The slight differences I have noticed are the LMT barrel is not parked under the FSB and doesn't use taper pins for the FSB.

Colt LE6920 have double layer heat shields in the handguards, LMT have only one layer.

The LMT lower has a high shelf and small diameter FCG pins while the Colt have an unmachined web sear block and large FCG pins.

LMT's buffer tube is grey dry lube 5 position with three drain holes in the last rear most detent holes, Colt's are 4 position anodized.

So far I had my LMT for more than a year now and have no problems with it like my Colt, I would recommend it if you can't find a Colt.

There should be a big shipment of 6920 to Colt dealers either next month or so.

C4IGrant
09-20-06, 09:42
I've been a Colt user for a long time (35 years) but now I have both Colt AR6721 and LMT Defender 2000 16" with LMT M16 BCG.

The slight differences I have noticed are the LMT barrel is not parked under the FSB and doesn't use taper pins for the FSB.

Colt LE6920 have double layer heat shields in the handguards, LMT have only one layer.

The LMT lower has a high shelf and small diameter FCG pins while the Colt have an unmachined web sear block and large FCG pins.

LMT's buffer tube is grey dry lube 5 position with three drain holes in the last rear most detent holes, Colt's are 4 position anodized.

So far I had my LMT for more than a year now and have no problems with it like my Colt, I would recommend it if you can't find a Colt.

There should be a big shipment of 6920 to Colt dealers either next month or so.

I believe Colt is now shipping AR's with a 6 position receiver extension.



C4

molsen
09-20-06, 10:41
LMT's buffer tube is grey dry lube 5 position with three drain holes in the last rear most detent holes, Colt's are 4 position anodized.
My LMT is a 6-position tube.

KevinB
09-20-06, 12:02
I have Colt and LMT lowers, and uppers.

I consider LMT a tier1 manufacturer -- I used a LMT 10.5 on a Colt M4A1 lower with no issues ;)

BTW my LMT 10.5 was parked under the FSB and had taper pins...

I think it is hard to generalize as both LMT and (most notably) Colt have generations that charge like the blowing wind.

My most MILSPEC gun is a Colt RO934 9mm SMG (which I run 5.56) it is for all intensive purposes a M4A1 lower (with the holes for the 9mm mag kit).

But given I have a LE6921, LE6920, AR6721, AR15A2 Gov't, and AR15A2 Gov't Carbine -- I would not make a sweeping statment since the lowers have about 6 different generations...

AR-15A3
09-20-06, 12:28
I believe Colt is now shipping AR's with a 6 position receiver extension.



C4
That's good news, at least they are improving their models.

Since when did they made the change, did it only started for the next coming shipment?

I would like to see pics of it and maybe order one for my 6721. :D

AR-15A3
09-20-06, 12:33
My LMT is a 6-position tube.
I stand corrected, this year's models are 6-position, I was talking about my 2005 model LMT which are only 5-position.

I also have seen new models with factory ambi selectors. :confused:

rob_s
09-20-06, 12:39
I believe Colt is now shipping AR's with a 6 position receiver extension.



C4
I'll be interested to see if the new 6933s have the 6 position.

Harv
09-20-06, 21:07
Well.. I have a BCM upper and a LMT lower... So I figure it's a Tier 1 rifle....;)

I'll let you know after about 5K rds......

Diz
09-23-06, 08:56
This distinction of what is considered tier one rifles (and parts) is about to be radically changed, IMHO. Colt has been up there for a long time, but there is a new generation of manufactuers, BCM, LMT, and CMT, to name a few, that are now making truly mil-spec parts that I believe will turn out to be just as good if not better than Colt.
Granted the jury is still out, but after a few million rounds in the coming years to prove it, I believe it will become apparent that you can build a tier one rifle with non-Colt parts. I will freely admit that I am no fan of Colt's, and this may bias my opinion, but I believe the time is coming when you can have a truly tier one rifle without the prancing pony.
The question in my mind is, do you only consider it tier one if it has been accepted as mil-spec by gov't contract, or can you use the mil-spec as an objective standard to build your own rifle to? For example, BCM may not have a gov't contract (yet!), but if their QA/QC is just as stringent, isn't it truly mil-spec in every way but the defense contract stamp?

C4IGrant
09-23-06, 09:10
This distinction of what is considered tier one rifles (and parts) is about to be radically changed, IMHO. Colt has been up there for a long time, but there is a new generation of manufactuers, BCM, LMT, and CMT, to name a few, that are now making truly mil-spec parts that I believe will turn out to be just as good if not better than Colt.
Granted the jury is still out, but after a few million rounds in the coming years to prove it, I believe it will become apparent that you can build a tier one rifle with non-Colt parts. I will freely admit that I am no fan of Colt's, and this may bias my opinion, but I believe the time is coming when you can have a truly tier one rifle without the prancing pony.
The question in my mind is, do you only consider it tier one if it has been accepted as mil-spec by gov't contract, or can you use the mil-spec as an objective standard to build your own rifle to? For example, BCM may not have a gov't contract (yet!), but if their QA/QC is just as stringent, isn't it truly mil-spec in every way but the defense contract stamp?

I agree (to a point). LMT and BCM put out HIGH quality products. The simple fact remains, that if you do not have the TDP to QC your receivers, barrels, lowers, etc, etc against then you really are not a tier 1 manufacturer.

The Military channel has been running this show called GI Factory (I think that is the name) and one of the places they go to is FN. They show how each part is tested for exactness against the TDP (with lasers and some other automated tools that measure every cut, hole and depth). Then the Govt. comes in and audits the logs that come off the QC machines. So unless you go through these rigors, you are not a Tier 1 manufacturer.

With that being said, I would take a BCM over a Colt any day of the week as I know the amount work that Paul puts into each and every upper.



C4

Submariner
09-23-06, 09:16
With that being said, I would take a BCM over a Colt any day of the week as I know the amount work that Paul puts into each and every upper.
C4

If Colt were to cost less than BCM, would you still buy it instead of Colt?

C4IGrant
09-23-06, 09:38
If Colt were to cost less than BCM, would you still buy it instead of Colt?


If you pretended that Colt would be cheaper than BCM, then you have to go to into deeper thought as to why one would buy a BCM. Here would be my reasons for going with a BCM over a Colt (even if Colt was cheaper):

1. Function testing (BCM tests with MUTLIPLE different ammo types to make sure the weapon runs at all pressure levels).
2. MPI exit criteria (BCM does not accept any flaws)
3. Accuracy requirement (BCM does not accept 4 MOA accuracy which is the acceptable .Mil accuracy level).
4. Like to see a small business do well. :D
5. BCM is in favor of Civilians owning their weapons!



C4

Diz
09-23-06, 09:48
For me, yes. Cost can be a factor but for me in this case, it isn't.
I am not trying to troll here. There are many fans of Colt. I am simply not one of them. We can simply leave it at that, and keep this thread from becoming a political diatribe.
It becomes a question of whether you believe a weapon can truly be considered tier one without gov't contract approval. Taking nothing away from FN and their gov't overseers, their process sounds truly impressive, but is this absolutely necessary? Coming from an areospace background, as an airframe fabricator, for GD, Martin Marietta, and Lockheed-Martin, I have seen the layers of gov't beaucracy that are necessary to comply with mil-specs and gov't contracts. We are all familiar with the processes that create the gold-plated parts and hundred-dollar toilet seats so I won't be-labor the point. However, I feel it's necessary to point out that just because a part is built to mil-specs for a gov't contract does not mean it is inherently superior to a non mil-spec part. It may be the case, or it might just be that one part has "papers" and the other does not.
There have been interesting discussions concerning mean time between failures and adjusting maintenance intervals to more than compensate for this. This seems to be a more viable approach to the subject, rather than relying on who the current gov't contractor is.

rob_s
09-23-06, 10:18
"is it absolutely necessary" is not an issue for me. An AR15 isn't necessary at all for me, neither is a 1911, but then neither is a 400 horsepower car, but I own all of them. When I buy I like to have what I consider to be the best. In my opinion, Colt IS the best.

Diz
09-23-06, 10:34
I don't mean the necessity of ownership or use (although that certainly is an issue with the Colt upper management), I mean the QA/QC layers of gov't beaucracy.
Each to his own.

rob_s
09-23-06, 12:14
I think Pat Rogers has said it in the past, but if the company doesn't HAVE to do the QC/QA then how do we have any assurance that they WILL? I am reminded of the Bushmaster "MP" mark on their barrels which in fact means "we test some" instead of "we test all".

C4IGrant
09-23-06, 12:44
For me, yes. Cost can be a factor but for me in this case, it isn't.
I am not trying to troll here. There are many fans of Colt. I am simply not one of them. We can simply leave it at that, and keep this thread from becoming a political diatribe.
It becomes a question of whether you believe a weapon can truly be considered tier one without gov't contract approval. Taking nothing away from FN and their gov't overseers, their process sounds truly impressive, but is this absolutely necessary? Coming from an areospace background, as an airframe fabricator, for GD, Martin Marietta, and Lockheed-Martin, I have seen the layers of gov't beaucracy that are necessary to comply with mil-specs and gov't contracts. We are all familiar with the processes that create the gold-plated parts and hundred-dollar toilet seats so I won't be-labor the point. However, I feel it's necessary to point out that just because a part is built to mil-specs for a gov't contract does not mean it is inherently superior to a non mil-spec part. It may be the case, or it might just be that one part has "papers" and the other does not.
There have been interesting discussions concerning mean time between failures and adjusting maintenance intervals to more than compensate for this. This seems to be a more viable approach to the subject, rather than relying on who the current gov't contractor is.

In a perfect world companies that build weapons would ALWAYS use the BEST quality materials and highest levels of QC. The fact is, that most companies (outside of FN, Colt and LMT) do not have a .Mil contract. Since they do not, they generally use the cheapest parts they can find in order to save a buck. They also have VERY limited QC. HPT/MPI testing bolts and barrels is generally NEVER done as it is too expensive. This is why Pat Rogers has a book full of broken BM bolts and almost NO Colt bolts.

So IMHO, companies HAVE to have .mil contracts because if they didn't, they would generally lose interest in high QC and making sure parts follow a spec.

The only exception to this rule that I can find is BCM as they DO NOT have a .Mil contract and follow the TDP as closely as possible.



C4

Submariner
09-23-06, 13:34
If you pretended that Colt would be cheaper than BCM, then you have to go to into deeper thought as to why one would buy a BCM. Here would be my reasons for going with a BCM over a Colt (even if Colt was cheaper):

1. Function testing (BCM tests with MUTLIPLE different ammo types to make sure the weapon runs at all pressure levels).
2. MPI exit criteria (BCM does not accept any flaws)
3. Accuracy requirement (BCM does not accept 4 MOA accuracy which is the acceptable .Mil accuracy level).
4. Like to see a small business do well. :D
5. BCM is in favor of Civilians owning their weapons!

That's why I asked.;) I appreciate your candor. Recall you once told me that, as good as LaRue rails are, there was no good reason to sell my KAC FF just to buy LaRue.

I was unaware of #1 and #3. BIG upcheck here.

On #5, at least quality Colt parts spilled over into the civilian market from '98-'01 when I did most of my upper parts buying, regardless of company policies). No one else came close back then. Then came 911 and YTM (You The Man; remember them?) couldn't get Colt parts. Others, notably BCM and a couple others, have stepped in to fill the gap. I'm shooting those uppers these days, not buying. Yet...

C4IGrant
09-23-06, 14:00
That's why I asked.;) I appreciate your candor. Recall you once told me that, as good as LaRue rails are, there was no good reason to sell my KAC FF just to buy LaRue.

I was unaware of #1 and #3. BIG upcheck here.

On #5, at least quality Colt parts spilled over into the civilian market from '98-'01 when I did most of my upper parts buying, regardless of company policies). No one else came close back then. Then came 911 and YTM (You The Man; remember them?) couldn't get Colt parts. Others, notably BCM and a couple others, have stepped in to fill the gap. I'm shooting those uppers these days, not buying. Yet...

KAC rails were the standard for MANY years and still put out a high quality rail, but are on the high price side. While I feel the LT rails are better (lighter, anti-rotation key, cheaper) your KAC rails were already paid for. :D




C4

VA_Dinger
09-23-06, 21:04
I have Colt and LMT lowers, and uppers.

I consider LMT a tier1 manufacturer -- I used a LMT 10.5 on a Colt M4A1 lower with no issues ;)

BTW my LMT 10.5 was parked under the FSB and had taper pins...

I think it is hard to generalize as both LMT and (most notably) Colt have generations that charge like the blowing wind.


I would have to agree 100%.

Every single one of my LMT carbines have run perfectly from day one. Nobody but a fool talks crap about Colt, but how much better can you get than 100% reliable?

FYI- I could not possibly care less if my carbine has taper pins or park under the FSB. Most of that talk reminds me of Internet noise.

S-1
09-23-06, 23:24
I would have to agree 100%.

Every single one of my LMT carbines have run perfectly from day one. Nobody but a fool talks crap about Colt, but how much better can you get than 100% reliable?

FYI- I could not possibly care less if my carbine has taper pins or park under the FSB. Most of that talk reminds me of Internet noise.

I also agree that Colt and LMT are equals in quality.

The only people that talk about the taper pins or LMT's not being parked under the FSB are Colt Freaks/Geeks.

TigerStripe
09-24-06, 00:41
I would buy BCM over a Colt, no question. The uppers are at least equal in quality, and Paul's customer service is just a tad better than Colt's. The only downside is BCM's not being available for purchase.


TS

f.2
02-19-07, 08:51
_____

RENEA
02-21-07, 18:44
LMT is good to go.

kbi
02-22-07, 12:23
After picking up my LMT Defender yesterday and looking it over they are now my #1 brand .

Foxandreed
02-23-07, 00:55
I have used what was issued(FN and Colt). I own Colt and an LMT Mrp. I find they are both perfect as they do everything they are advertised to do. This being said, I still own one Colt in 9mm and it is well put together but not the best looking gun. My LMT is the best looking package and just as well put together. By the way the FN is still the most fun that I have used on a regular basis (full fun switch).