Colt Expance CE2000 -- Something I've never seen before... (picture added)

[olivehead]

One of my LGS just got in 3 Colt Expanses, model number CE2000. That's right, with the factory installed dust cover and forward assist. I examined one and noted 2 things: (1) the hardest-to-close dust cover I've ever experienced and (2) black paint on both sides of the lower "ears" where the trigger guard roll pin goes. On the latter, I'm not talking about a dab; I'm talking about a small brush stroke's worth. And on both sides. I remember reading on this or another forum (or maybe it was the comments to a Youtube video) about a guy who installed a Magpul trigger guard and as a "finishing touch" he put a dab of black paint on the end of the roll pin. In the replies/comments he was razzed mercilessly. Well the gen2 Expanse I was looking at has a swath of black paint on both sides of the roll pin. Since neither I nor the guy behind the counter had ever seen this, he pulled the other two gen2 Expanses in stock. Same thing on both. I've just never seen that on a factory new production gun ever. And incidentally, both of the other 2 also had very difficult to close dust covers. All three had the M4/LE serial number lowers. But I'm thinking fail.
p.s. 2 of the 3 uppers had the BAFE square forge mark and one had a crab-looking forge mark I've never seen before. Haven't been able to identify it yet. All of the gen1 Expanses I've seen had the circle forge mark (Performance Forge?).

[Alnamvet68]

I've seen broken "ears" that were a result of ham fisted trigger guard installs...black paint used in an attempt to cover up the damage after the ears were glued on.

[dsk]

I installed a trigger guard roll pin for the first time a few weeks ago, by using a small modified C-clamp and it was easy peasy. The guys breaking off frame ears are simply setting the frame on the ground or bench without any support for the ears, taking a hammer and drift punch and going at it like a gorilla. I used a regular blued roll pin found at the local hardware store and it didn't even need any touching up afterwards, so I don't know why Colt would need to use black paint on the frame afterwards especially when they're using specific tools designed for the purpose of installing the pin. Perhaps... and this is just a wild-arsed theory of mine... they might be setting aside blemished frames specifically to use in their Expanse line?

[Zirk208]

Was there ever any validity to the notion that the Expanse line was being sub-contracted out to another manufacturer/assembler (cough) anderson (cough)?

[olivehead]

It's really tough to figure. Why dab paint on BOTH ears when the roll pin goes in from one? And to see this in 3 of 3 examples. Something is seriously wrong here. Again, this was on3 CE2000s. Haven't seen I the 4 or 5 CE1000s I've seen.
BTW I went to the gun show this afternoon and one of the dealers had a CE2000. Same thing with the paint on the roll pin/ears.
40730

[July4th]

Saw an Expanse at the LGS where the dealer had installed a dust cover and FA to help sell it. The dust cover was very hard to close and wouldn't close all the way, there was a gap. When cycling the bolt by hand it would only open partially. Maybe the lowers are out of spec? IMO the rifle looked and felt like junk.

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

[Alnamvet68]

As some have noticed, Colt is definitely not for the fit and finish crowd.

[dsk]

Saw an Expanse at the LGS where the dealer had installed a dust cover and FA to help sell it. The dust cover was very hard to close and wouldn't close all the way, there was a gap. When cycling the bolt by hand it would only open partially. Maybe the lowers are out of spec?


I assume you meant to say "upper", but yeah that's what I'm beginning to wonder as well.


As some have noticed, Colt is definitely not for the fit and finish crowd.

We get that. The question is, what the hell are they doing with those triggerguard ears and why? And why would the dust covers be a terrible fit on upper receivers that should be the exact same specs as all those millions of other Colts out there without s**tty-fitty dust covers? I doubt it's a recent QC lapse at Colt, because I just bought a brand-new 6920-OEM1 and the dust cover fits perfectly fine.

[jpmuscle]

I don't get Colt and the expanse. Why not just pump out more 6920s instead? So dumb..

[notorious_ar15]

If you use a roll pin pusher like the one from Little Crow gun works, it can slightly scuff or mark that area if it moves slightly as you are turning the knob if you don't put blue painters tape (etc) over that area.
I'm guessing that's what it might be from...

[Alnamvet68]

When I have seen and read all the issues many have had with installing trigger guards and dust covers, I am at a loss why manufacturers and customers don't use the several offerings from many companies who sell the easy install trigger guards such as one offered by Dead On Arms LLC, or the ez pz install of dust covers from Strike Industries or Hera; and since many install these "winter guards" so as to accommodate those who wear gloves, why not just standardized forged one piece trigger guards?

[dsk]

I don't get Colt and the expanse. Why not just pump out more 6920s instead? So dumb..

The problem is, while the 6920 is probably the best bang for the buck in an AR the majority of AR buyers out there want one that's even cheaper. I swear, every single time I go into a gun store guys are looking over the Ruger and S&W ARs and not the Colts or Windhams. Virtually nobody looks at a Noveske or Daniel Defense, assuming the shop even bothers to carry any. The vast majority of AR buyers are weekend warriors hell-bent on engaging insurgent soda bottles in a gravel pit, not serious students of the rifle. Colt recognizes this and first gave us the OEMs, then realized they need an even cheaper AR if they want to attract some business away from the likes of Ruger, Bushmaster and S&W. That's why we have the Expanse. It sounds like a good idea, but if the quality isn't there they're going to shoot themselves in the foot because the reputation can negatively impact how people perceive the 6920. It'll get even worse after people start upgrading their Expanses with M4 barrels and we start finding used "6920s" for sale that started out as Expanse models.

[Alnamvet68]

The problem is, while the 6920 is probably the best bang for the buck in an AR the majority of AR buyers out there want one that's even cheaper. I swear, every single time I go into a gun store guys are looking over the Ruger and S&W ARs and not the Colts or Windhams. Virtually nobody looks at a Noveske or Daniel Defense, assuming the shop even bothers to carry any. The vast majority of AR buyers are weekend warriors hell-bent on engaging insurgent soda bottles in a gravel pit, not serious students of the rifle. Colt recognizes this and first gave us the OEMs, then realized they need an even cheaper AR if they want to attract some business away from the likes of Ruger, Bushmaster and S&W. That's why we have the Expanse. It sounds like a good idea, but if the quality isn't there they're going to shoot themselves in the foot because the reputation can negatively impact how people perceive the 6920. It'll get even worse after people start upgrading their Expanses with M4 barrels and we start finding used "6920s" for sale that started out as Expanse models.

I will agree that the Colt 6920 is most likely the best bang for the buck in a "mil-spec" AR in the $700 to $900 price group (depending on configuration); that said, after having served off and on since 1967 in the Army and Navy, for a grand total of 28.5 years, active and as a reservist, I take great umbrage over your use of "weekend warrior", which I am now member of. Unless you're on active duty and serving in a conflict zone, and in an MOS that defines you as a "shooter", then you're a weekend warrior. Most of us shoot at paper and steel targets, if lucky, have access to a range with a "combat" course, shoot soda bottles, and some may have access to a gravel pit....either way, if you're not engaged on a daily basis in an occupation where the use of an AR15 is routine or expected, then you're a weekend warrior.

For those on a Toyota 4 Runner budget, the S&W's and Ruger's are a perfect solution given their budget constraints. I am blessed and privileged to have access to a few of the rifle ranges at nearby military installations, and that includes the use of an unlimited supply of 5.56 ammo. Many retirees who I served with or are new to me, will show up with their Colt's, Bushmasters, a Ruger or two, and lately one with a Del-ton...these guys were, and still are, "the real deal"...they and I are weekend warriors.

[jpmuscle]

The problem is, while the 6920 is probably the best bang for the buck in an AR the majority of AR buyers out there want one that's even cheaper. I swear, every single time I go into a gun store guys are looking over the Ruger and S&W ARs and not the Colts or Windhams. Virtually nobody looks at a Noveske or Daniel Defense, assuming the shop even bothers to carry any. The vast majority of AR buyers are weekend warriors hell-bent on engaging insurgent soda bottles in a gravel pit, not serious students of the rifle. Colt recognizes this and first gave us the OEMs, then realized they need an even cheaper AR if they want to attract some business away from the likes of Ruger, Bushmaster and S&W. That's why we have the Expanse. It sounds like a good idea, but if the quality isn't there they're going to shoot themselves in the foot because the reputation can negatively impact how people perceive the 6920. It'll get even worse after people start upgrading their Expanses with M4 barrels and we start finding used "6920s" for sale that started out as Expanse models.
All the more reason to skip the expanse production costs all together and put those assets into turning more 6920s and sell them for cheaper. 600$ 6920s all day long. I just don't see the point in expanding production of a separate line when the end goal of increasing profits could be accomplished simply through a increase in volume sales of current offerings.

Or maybe they can't do that, idk.

[Butch]

It'll get even worse after people start upgrading their Expanses with M4 barrels and we start finding used "6920s" for sale that started out as Expanse models.

I seen a guy selling a Colt SOCOM. The serial number matching box was an OEM. Technically did not misrepresent himself, but it was a look-a-like he built with an OEM as the base.

[dsk]

I will agree that the Colt 6920 is most likely the best bang for the buck in a "mil-spec" AR in the $700 to $900 price group (depending on configuration); that said, after having served off and on since 1967 in the Army and Navy, for a grand total of 28.5 years, active and as a reservist, I take great umbrage over your use of "weekend warrior", which I am now member of. Unless you're on active duty and serving in a conflict zone, and in an MOS that defines you as a "shooter", then you're a weekend warrior. Most of us shoot at paper and steel targets, if lucky, have access to a range with a "combat" course, shoot soda bottles, and some may have access to a gravel pit....either way, if you're not engaged on a daily basis in an occupation where the use of an AR15 is routine or expected, then you're a weekend warrior.

Exactly... which is why a significant number of AR buyers are perfectly content with a $599 Ruger or Bushmaster. Few will ever run an AR hard enough to shoot out a 4140 barrel or end up with a loose castle nut. I didn't mean to disparage "weekend warriors" for I am obviously one myself. But I prefer to pay a little bit more for a quality AR, not because I require a better AR but for my hard-earned money I want stuff that will last. Unfortunately I'm in the minority as the entry-level AR market is huge, which is why Colt is trying to tap into that market. Apparently they can't lower the price on the 6920 far enough and still make any money off of it, which is why they gave us the OEM models in an attempt to grab some of the budget-conscious buyers. But Joe Schmo who wants an AR that's ready to rock right of the box doesn't want a partially-assembled AR, so therefore we've been blessed with the Expanse. However if the Expanse earns a reputation for shoddy quality control it's going to affect Colt's entire AR line, as I already mentioned.

[olivehead]

Exactly... which is why a significant number of AR buyers are perfectly content with a $599 Ruger or Bushmaster. Few will ever run an AR hard enough to shoot out a 4140 barrel or end up with a loose castle nut.

I'm probably in the minority on this forum (and others...no names) but I see nothing wrong with a "budget" AR from companies like Smith and Ruger, just to name two. Neither of those companies makes junk, and both back their products as well as anyone in the industry (although I am a bit perplexed by the Ruger AR-556's BCG with its, shall we say, interesting profile and unshrounded firing pin). Same for Bushmaster. I've heard and read horror stories even going back to the Windham days, and all I can say is that from personal experience with a late-Windham era model and an early Illion, NY, model, both are GTG. My only "beef" with Bushmaster is that, for the average retail price, you should get a milspec buffer tube, if only for the sake of greater variety in choosing buttstocks.

BTW, while I have on occasion at a certain big-box store seen $599 Sport 2s and $629 AR-556s, the average retail price at least around here is about $675, and the best price I've ever seen on a NIB Bushmaster Patrolman Carbine is $750.

As for the Expanse, it really is hard to justify vs. a 6920, new or used, unless you're budget really is maxed out at $700-750 and you just have to have the M4/LE lower. The painted roll pin ears of the CE2000 killed it for me.

[dsk]

Well, we still haven't found out what Colt's rationale is for dabbing paint on the receiver ears. By the way, yesterday I compared my brand-new 6920 to my older yet low-mileage Sporter-marked one made six years ago, and while the dust cover on the new one isn't particularly hard to close it does require a lot more force to snap shut than my older one. Just throwing that out there for what it's worth.

[clarkz71]

Ah, dust cover-gate..........

I just checked my 2013 version 6920, purchased Dec 2015.

Dust cover closing effort perfect, fit as well.

[patriot_man]

Well, we still haven't found out what Colt's rationale is for dabbing paint on the receiver ears. By the way, yesterday I compared my brand-new 6920 to my older yet low-mileage Sporter-marked one made six years ago, and while the dust cover on the new one isn't particularly hard to close it does require a lot more force to snap shut than my older one. Just throwing that out there for what it's worth.

Probably excessive finish wear on the holes. They used to put paint on SP1 bolt catch holes after the roll pin or roll pin punch caused cosmetic flaws.

[dsk]

Personally I'd rather have the finish wear on the edge of the holes that that big ugly smear of paint. I've gotten pretty good at using a bottle of Birchwood Casey Aluminum Black and a Q-Tip to fix Colt's authentic Battle Damage™ finish that they typically come with these days.