View Full Version : Colt Expanse - Not All Same
I picked up an Expanse this week, and it is not like the others I have seen. $599 and this one has C marked upper with T marked rail and M4 marks above gas rod. Has chromed chamber, greyish colored S 4 marked barrel extension. Properly staked key and MP marked bolt. C marked sear and Colt low mass hammer. C marked magazine catch. F height front post. C marked barrel with P marking. Mil spec 4 position buffer tube.
I added old double shielded M4 guards, a Fiberlite "N" marked stock, and a Yankee Hill rear flip up, and a heavy Spikes buffer from my parts bin.
Feeling pretty good to go.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
I forgot that I also added forward assist and bolt cover.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
It's a bargain line made for Colt by someone else.
Nothing to get really excited about, IMO. Just another <$600 AR.
I would think it's safe to assume any Colt marked parts other than the lower on an expanse are reject parts from real colts.
Hell I bet the lowers used for the expanse are all blems
Rifleman_04
03-11-17, 18:59
I might check the headspace on it before the first range outing and read the expanse kaboom thread in the technical section.
Already fired a hundred rounds through it. Runs like a champ. The point of this thread is that this one has several key differences from Expanses I have seen elsewhere, which seem to be the much maligned norm.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
The Kaboom thread while rich in images is weak on conclusions. Thread suggests the ammo and more likely the user is the cause.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
I'm starting to find parts mismatching on Colt's normal. I have an 6940 which has a Colt/Rogers stock and a Matech rear BUIS. It should have neither.
I thought the SOCOM edition had a Rogers and a Matech
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Rifleman_04
03-11-17, 20:57
The Rogers was standard on most Colt carbines for a while.
The Kaboom thread while rich in images is weak on conclusions. Thread suggests the ammo and more likely the user is the cause.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Yeah the cause of the kaboom still wasn't clear but someone else posting in the thread had headspace issues. Just don't want to hear about anyone else getting hurt.
I would think it's safe to assume any Colt marked parts other than the lower on an expanse are reject parts from real colts.
Hell I bet the lowers used for the expanse are all blems
Do you think? So, why would a company want to put reject parts in a product that, regardless of who actually made it, wears their corporate name, as in Colt Expanse.
Think it through a little more, many believe that Colt is the go to for good service grade rifles. If you think they would put reject parts on a rifle bearing their name, should you hold them in such high esteem?
I'm not a Colt fanboy, and I'm not trying to scold, but it makes no sense that Colt would do that, none at all.
Do you think? So, why would a company want to put reject parts in a product that, regardless of who actually made it, wears their corporate name, as in Colt Expanse.
Think it through a little more, many believe that Colt is the go to for good service grade rifles. If you think they would put reject parts on a rifle bearing their name, should you hold them in such high esteem?
I'm not a Colt fanboy, and I'm not trying to scold, but it makes no sense that Colt would do that, none at all.
That would present quite the quandary, right? In addition to your points, the "reject" theory opens the door for all kinds of less than flattering inferences.
https://i.imgflip.com/1l9234.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/1l9234)
^^^This captures one such inference. How poor would Colt's manufacturing have to be if they were able to produce an entire line from rejected parts? Some might say, "Well, they have an abundance of rejects only because their quality standards are so high." That almost sounds reasonable and admirable. But, if the components they're producing are rejected that frequently by their own QC, they've got a manufacturing problem.
One more problematic inference? If Expanse rifles are essentially built from rejected 6xxx series components, couldn't we then assume something like the 6920 is built from rejected Military components? Thus, that mil-spec AR might not actually be so mil-spec.
Now, before anyone goes crazy, I'm not claiming any of the above is true. Like 26 Inf, I just found that the "reject" assertion could prove problematic for the Colt quality diehards.
I never understood why the Colt Marketing folks came up with the word "Expanse" to describe a stripped down civilian version rifle. An Expanse is a wide open area. Maybe it sounds better than a Colt Void? That's why I'm not in marketing. To accurately describe it would be something more like the Colt Lite, but then it wouldn't have that macho attraction a real Colt has. Real men don't like Lite anything. Maybe Expanse, to the Colt marketing gurus, generates a feeling of a new and open land, waiting to be built on. Just like the rifle; it's new for the noob, something to start with and grow, filling that Expanse with experience and future purchases. Kind of like your first car...it's a beater, but you learn with it.
Hmm. Didn't realize this was the subject of great controversy. My simple observation is that Colt is putting out Expanse rifles with a range of different components. Interestingly, all the ones at the biggest non-chain LGS in my area have M4/T marked uppers, and all the ones acrosd town at another LGS do not.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
The Kaboom thread while rich in images is weak on conclusions. Thread suggests the ammo and more likely the user is the cause.
I've been reading the Kaboom thread. What could have made that user error? I'm genuinely asking.
Is your name PT McCain?
Ha!!
I'm starting to find parts mismatching on Colt's normal. I have an 6940 which has a Colt/Rogers stock and a Matech rear BUIS. It should have neither.
This is exactly how the 6940 I bought 5 years ago came. Colt used the Matech before they switched to the Mbus. The Rogers stock only came on Colt's for maybe a year? My 6720 came with both of these items also.
masenomics
03-12-17, 10:11
The expanse I got last year had all the same parts that you have described, and when I compared it to my 6920 the only obvious differences were in the barrel and the lower parts kit used in the lower receiver.
Do you think? So, why would a company want to put reject parts in a product that, regardless of who actually made it, wears their corporate name, as in Colt Expanse.
Think it through a little more, many believe that Colt is the go to for good service grade rifles. If you think they would put reject parts on a rifle bearing their name, should you hold them in such high esteem?
I'm not a Colt fanboy, and I'm not trying to scold, but it makes no sense that Colt would do that, none at all.
Agreed...and beyond that, one must assume that Colt has and plans to continue to produce enough "blems" or out of spec parts to then launch an entirely new product line.
The blem argument is horseshit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I bought a couple back pre election to stick back in the safe for my boys. Got them for a little over $550 OTD. Haven't done more than a quick function test but there aren't any obvious issues.
added the fa and dust cover plus a couple ALG triggers I had laying around and have just a hair over 1200 in them combined. Not sure I'd trust my life to them but a decent value for "my first AR" I think.
Nate
NAAH Tool Works
Naahtoolworks.com
Naahtoolworks@gmail.com
556BlackRifle
03-12-17, 11:02
This is exactly how the 6940 I bought 5 years ago came. Colt used the Matech before they switched to the Mbus. The Rogers stock only came on Colt's for maybe a year? My 6720 came with both of these items also.
Spot on. Perhaps Colt had some NOS parts that they needed to be cleared out of inventory and sold them at a good price to the third party manufacturer.
Yeah, I didn't buy one as a first AR, but as my most recent. Have owned and assembled a bunch, and have had the good fortune to see them made largely from scratch at nearby Barnes Precision.
I would not pay even $600 for the Expanses I have seen with non-Colt lowers and uppers. But this one really is hard to tell from a 6920 - except for the easily swapped bits and the barrel. But I am ok with a 4150 unlined barrel.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
I also had a bunch of good parts and furniture lying around.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Beat Trash
03-12-17, 11:14
I get the concept of the Colt Expanse. They need something to compete with the market that is attracted to the S&W M&P Sport. And if the current price of a 6920 was in the $1,100 - 1,200 range or higher, I might take a hard look at one.
But with OEM-1's and 2's going for as cheap as they are, I have a hard time not recommending that route. Grant had OEM-1's for under $700 recently. Yes I know you have the additional cost of the furniture and rear sight, but you end up with a consistent quality. One that I would trust my life to. One that I did trust my life to as a Patrol Rifle for a few years, until I switched to a mid length DD. But I'd carry a 6920 again in a heartbeat if I had to.
I keep a 6920 with MagPul MOE sl furniture around as a "demo" rifle for people who are interested in their first AR. And I also keep it around because it's a fun gun to shoot. Each of my kids have a 6920 with the same furniture.
Yes, I get that Colt outsourced the Expanse so that they can compete with the M&P Sport. But I'd rather have someone save up a bit longer and just go the 6720/6920 route if at all possible.
If my LGS ever had an OEM for 699 that would be the best way to go for sure.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Beat Trash
03-12-17, 14:02
If my LGS ever had an OEM for 699 that would be the best way to go for sure.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Check with Grant at G&R. Buying the gun on line avoids sales tax so long as you don't live in Ohio (where his store is). The cost of shipping and transfer fee charged by your FFL would be the sale or less than the sales tax you would pay when buying from your local store.
My le6940 was apparently an early version with the restricted roll marks on the right side of the magwell. It came with the standard Colt carbine stock and a Matech BUIS.
SeriousStudent
03-12-17, 15:35
Is your name PT McCain?
If it is, his tenure will be quite short.
I am new here: Is somebody asking me if my name is PT McCain? That is not my name and I don't know who he is.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
I am new here: Is somebody asking me if my name is PT McCain? That is not my name and I don't know who he is.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
I spend most of my time outside, in the sun and away from electronic devices so I'm out of the loop on that one. I did a quick GOOGLE search and that name seems to associated with some Troll or forum trouble maker who has been sent to cyber Hell more than once, shoveling bandwidth brimstone even as we write this, I would guess.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170312/bac61e63443ec8f16cc1e627533ad347.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170312/5b06e9b8591affa82eda5bb95bddae32.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170312/ba40d61404bccff187a6a91f30a54963.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170312/900a68658cf151094c03f054a10e3aee.jpg
M4 above gas tube sorta visible in this pic, but clear as day in real life.
Singlestack Wonder
03-12-17, 17:34
Most of the non-Colt parts on the expanse are made by anderson. I saw this while visiting an OEM who was manufacturing fixtures and dies for anderson.
How is the barrel and bolt marked?
M4 above gas tube sorta visible in this pic, but clear as day in real life.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170313/66430d22af993d59e9f54d32912bbeb8.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170313/64a9e436ba40ce0d7f2c5419d86ae325.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170313/59105f2aea2ea59b1db9a6386d60e05f.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170313/2c7e0e09e4694106f540d501d8ed6c71.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170313/f624290a8a59c73bf58c2384167f203b.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170313/03e19aa2f43453e4afad2d393a88cf13.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170313/7a612dec88c08e082f905b41c1668b64.jpg
Most of the non-Colt parts on the expanse are made by anderson. I saw this while visiting an OEM who was manufacturing fixtures and dies for anderson.
Wonder what specs they hold Anderson to....
Nate
NAAH Tool Works
Naahtoolworks.com
Naahtoolworks@gmail.com
300 rds down the pipe with no fails. just a squirt of clp. accurate.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
I have 600 rds through an Expanse upper on a Smith lower and have only good things to say about the combination. I shoot dirt clods, stumps, and similar targets with it. I married to it in the sense I paid too much for what I have and would take a beating if I sold or traded it. I fret that I ended up with a sporting rifle and not the real deal. It appears that these rifles have changed a bit since they were introduced in the sense that the number of non Colt parts making them up has changed. I've studied them and talked with the people who make them and think that they're ok for my use. Now that the market is soft and becoming more so and now that we know that Colt is going through rough times financially, I predict that the Expanse will cease to be marketable. If it continues to exist, I predict that more non Colt parts may show up in them. I fear that they may become a substandard product.
Gatorgrizz27
03-25-17, 22:03
Do you think? So, why would a company want to put reject parts in a product that, regardless of who actually made it, wears their corporate name, as in Colt Expanse.
Think it through a little more, many believe that Colt is the go to for good service grade rifles. If you think they would put reject parts on a rifle bearing their name, should you hold them in such high esteem?
I'm not a Colt fanboy, and I'm not trying to scold, but it makes no sense that Colt would do that, none at all.
There are LOTS of companies screwing consumers by using their previously reputable names to make a buck. Craftsman, Remington, Levi's, Lacrosse, Xtratuf, the list goes on and on. Colt has always been focused on MIL/LEO sales, if they can dump their reject products onto mall ninjas who believe in their reputation, make some extra money, and still uphold their .gov contracts, why wouldn't they? Brand integrity isn't a real thing anymore, unfortunately. Everyone wants it cheaper.
Do you think? So, why would a company want to put reject parts in a product that, regardless of who actually made it, wears their corporate name, as in Colt Expanse.
Think it through a little more, many believe that Colt is the go to for good service grade rifles. If you think they would put reject parts on a rifle bearing their name, should you hold them in such high esteem?
I'm not a Colt fanboy, and I'm not trying to scold, but it makes no sense that Colt would do that, none at all.
Why would they put their name on an expanse? It is clearly not "service grade", unless you consider Anderson parts service grade. Why would Colt put their name on something they don't even make in their plant that is below the quality they are expected to put out? That is what makes no sense.
Your argument of Colt not wanting to tarnish their good name is void based on having already showed they are willing to tarnish it with the Expanse. They buy crap parts from other manufacturers to build these rifles, why wouldn't they use their own parts?
That would present quite the quandary, right? In addition to your points, the "reject" theory opens the door for all kinds of less than flattering inferences.
https://i.imgflip.com/1l9234.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/1l9234)
^^^This captures one such inference. How poor would Colt's manufacturing have to be if they were able to produce an entire line from rejected parts? Some might say, "Well, they have an abundance of rejects only because their quality standards are so high." That almost sounds reasonable and admirable. But, if the components they're producing are rejected that frequently by their own QC, they've got a manufacturing problem.
One more problematic inference? If Expanse rifles are essentially built from rejected 6xxx series components, couldn't we then assume something like the 6920 is built from rejected Military components? Thus, that mil-spec AR might not actually be so mil-spec.
Now, before anyone goes crazy, I'm not claiming any of the above is true. Like 26 Inf, I just found that the "reject" assertion could prove problematic for the Colt quality diehards.
Agreed...and beyond that, one must assume that Colt has and plans to continue to produce enough "blems" or out of spec parts to then launch an entirely new product line.
The blem argument is horseshit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These rifles do not need to be built from exclusively blem parts. When they don't have any, they can just buy Anderson garbage. What this rifle and its inconsistent parts does do is let them get rid of parts when they need. Bad batch of anodizing on the upper?, F-it send off to be put on expanses. Same for any parts, if they are no good for a "service grade weapon" send of to be put together for a hobby rifle, or "pathetic pony" as the expanse should be renamed. Previously who knows what they did with sub par parts? throw them out, auction them off? what ever it was they can now sell them.
Colts "service grade rifles" where known to have "fit and finish" that was not good for a safe queen but good fro a tool. Thats awesome for the .mil market, but in the highly competitive civilian market will get shooters to buy something else. Now that Colt has to value and cater to the civilian market with rifles like the 6960 CCU maybe they are going to observe better fit and finish to satisfy the average civilian. This would therefor allow for more parts to fall int the "blem" category and get shipped out to make pathetic ponies out of.
Lastly think of companies that have blems. I'll give you two Geissele and Noveske. They both produce high end items, they both have blems. Does this mean Geiselle and Noveske have "manufacturing problems"
Colt ownership and leadership have changed so many times that predicting what they will or won't do may be difficult. I have an Expanse upper and having spent an hour talking with the head guy at the Expanse facility in Texas, I was convinced that I had a good upper that would make a good sporting grade AR. Next year that may not be true. Since I bought it, paid too much, and now can't sell it without losing a lot of money, I've decided to love the upper and sing its praises. That's the psychology behind defending shit stuff that you erred in buying. I admit it. Many won't. I also shoot dirt clods and stumps.
Why would they put their name on an expanse? It is clearly not "service grade", unless you consider Anderson parts service grade. Why would Colt put their name on something they don't even make in their plant that is below the quality they are expected to put out? That is what makes no sense.
Your argument of Colt not wanting to tarnish their good name is void based on having already showed they are willing to tarnish it with the Expanse. They buy crap parts from other manufacturers to build these rifles, why wouldn't they use their own parts?
These rifles do not need to be built from exclusively blem parts. When they don't have any, they can just buy Anderson garbage. What this rifle and its inconsistent parts does do is let them get rid of parts when they need. Bad batch of anodizing on the upper?, F-it send off to be put on expanses. Same for any parts, if they are no good for a "service grade weapon" send of to be put together for a hobby rifle, or "pathetic pony" as the expanse should be renamed. Previously who knows what they did with sub par parts? throw them out, auction them off? what ever it was they can now sell them.
Colts "service grade rifles" where known to have "fit and finish" that was not good for a safe queen but good fro a tool. Thats awesome for the .mil market, but in the highly competitive civilian market will get shooters to buy something else. Now that Colt has to value and cater to the civilian market with rifles like the 6960 CCU maybe they are going to observe better fit and finish to satisfy the average civilian. This would therefor allow for more parts to fall int the "blem" category and get shipped out to make pathetic ponies out of.
Lastly think of companies that have blems. I'll give you two Geissele and Noveske. They both produce high end items, they both have blems. Does this mean Geiselle and Noveske have "manufacturing problems"
If they were producing blems in such quantity as to supply a new product, then yes...that would be the very definition of a manufacturing problem.
If Colt had such a high incidence of blem parts, it would make FAR more sense to sell them as such. Just like the other manufacturers do. It costs the same to assemble a product from in-spec parts as it does to assemble with out of spec parts. Absolutely no way you put more labor into sub standard parts, unless it is to re-work into prime.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If they were producing blems in such quantity as to supply a new product, then yes...that would be the very definition of a manufacturing problem.
If Colt had such a high incidence of blem parts, it would make FAR more sense to sell them as such. Just like the other manufacturers do. It costs the same to assemble a product from in-spec parts as it does to assemble with out of spec parts. Absolutely no way you put more labor into sub standard parts, unless it is to re-work into prime.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and thats exactly why no more Colt employee's build them into guns. The parts are sent to Texas where the pathetic pony is assembled by non Colt employee's.
and again its a place for them to dump parts, over runs even it doesn't all have to be bless even. And when they don't have parts to dump they can keep using the anderson crap. Personally I'd take a Colt blem over anderson.
and thats exactly why no more Colt employee's build them into guns. The parts are sent to Texas where the pathetic pony is assembled by non Colt employee's.
and again its a place for them to dump parts, over runs even it doesn't all have to be bless even. And when they don't have parts to dump they can keep using the anderson crap. Personally I'd take a Colt blem over anderson.
Look...the goal of manufacturing management is to refine and improve processes to the point of eliminating mistakes. You do not continue to the point of opening the new "pathetic pony" product line.
Lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Since we're guessing and assuming, I guess and assume it's automatically cheaper to have a non-union employee make something than a union employee make something.
Butch - I ass-u-me the same thing.
While looking for the wages of Colt union employees I found something that I did not know in Wiki:
Bushmaster has subsequently overtaken Colt in the number of AR-15s sold on the civilian market. Colt suffered a legal defeat in court when it sued Bushmaster for trademark infringement claiming that "M4" was a trademark that it owned. The judge ruled that since the term M4 is a generic designation that Colt does not specifically own, Colt had to pay monetary reimbursement to Bushmaster to recoup Bushmaster's legal fees.
Wondering, is that currently true regarding production numbers?
The fact is Colt has outsourced the production of an entry level product. The intrinsic quality of the product is in my view no less than that of competing entry level ARs. In the case of mine, the fact is that the lower, upper, barrel, f marked sight post, buffer tube, fcg, and most of the small parts are Colt manufactured. The bolt is MP tested but not C marked. The bc is well staked but not C marked.
The furniture - who cares.
As far as entry level AR goes - at 599 mine was a WAY better option than the competition, if only because of the total number of Colt parts I identified in it. I swapped out the parts I didnt like, and decided I could live with a 4150 non lined medium contour barrel.
The fact is other Expanses I have examined do NOT have the same upper receiver as mine which is C, M4 and T marked. But they do appear to be properly assembled. Not sure I would see that as good a deal for basis of build.
The constant bashing of Colt by disillusioned fanboys is typical of the web - repetitive, predictable, circular and oddly passionate.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Butch - I ass-u-me the same thing.
While looking for the wages of Colt union employees I found something that I did not know in Wiki:
Bushmaster has subsequently overtaken Colt in the number of AR-15s sold on the civilian market. Colt suffered a legal defeat in court when it sued Bushmaster for trademark infringement claiming that "M4" was a trademark that it owned. The judge ruled that since the term M4 is a generic designation that Colt does not specifically own, Colt had to pay monetary reimbursement to Bushmaster to recoup Bushmaster's legal fees.
Wondering, is that currently true regarding production numbers?
The ATF publishes production figures each year. Bushmaster production has been at, or near, the top of the list for some time. Colt has had years that were towards the top, but generally is towards the upper end of the middle of the pack in production. S&W I believe overtook everyone in the past year or two. I don't recall the numbers, but it was a pretty surprising level of output. Something like 200-300k rifles in one year.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.