View Full Version : Colts Outrageously Expensive At Gun Show
Ok guys...just went to a local gun show in South Fla, found a vendor that had about 3 LE 6920's for sale, along with some other Colt LE carbines, and this vendor's prices were THROUGH THE ROOF!!!!!
They wanted $2300 and change for the LE6920's.......they had a used LE 6721 for about $1800......the most they would do is take off about $100 if I paid cash!!!
I also found some various vendors selling Sporters and Match Target rifles in the $1600-$1800 range.
When I asked why such high prices, I was told that it was because Colt was no longer going to be manufacturing rifles for sale to the public in the US...they were moving their plant to Canada or something like that.
Truly unbelievable!!!
Just wanted to share the info!!!
Abdon
I've seen the rumors that Colt won't sell to civilians other than cops so it isn't out of the realm of possiblity. IMO, I will not try to obtain one due to the price and that policy. They may be excellent weapons and the best in the AR sector but that doesn't make me want one any more especially when there are many other great companies out there.
I know, they're the only "teir one" AR maker... (unless you count FN.)
Maybe this article will help shed a little light but take it for what it is worth since it is wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt%27s_Manufacturing_Company
They're just flaunting because they think the new M5 is going to be the hottest thing since plastic. Some of the R&D staff think Colt is going to slam all competiton... The M5 is very cool. But, its still a matter of money<value.
I know, they're the only "teir one" AR maker... (unless you count FN.)
Really? (I am assuming you mean AR's alone and you are not including the M16 family of weapons.) Why aren't some of the others (RRA, Bushmaster, Armalite, DPMS, Stag, etc.) considered teir one?
Really? (I am assuming you mean AR's alone and you are not including the M16 family of weapons.) Why aren't some of the others (RRA, Bushmaster, Armalite, DPMS, Stag, etc.) considered teir one?
Oh boy!
Look around the forums a bit more before you ask that.
Robb Jensen
11-06-06, 05:56
Ok guys...just went to a local gun show in South Fla, found a vendor that had about 3 LE 6920's for sale, along with some other Colt LE carbines, and this vendor's prices were THROUGH THE ROOF!!!!!
They wanted $2300 and change for the LE6920's.......they had a used LE 6721 for about $1800......the most they would do is take off about $100 if I paid cash!!!
Abdon
G&R Tactical has new 6721s for $1300, you would have to get it transferred to a dealer in your home state though.
They're just flaunting because they think the new M5 is going to be the hottest thing since plastic. Some of the R&D staff think Colt is going to slam all competiton... The M5 is very cool. But, its still a matter of money<value.
Where can I find some more info on the M5?
Did a search and mostly came up with BMW stuff!
Thanks!!
Abdon
Oh boy!
Look around the forums a bit more before you ask that.
OK, let's refrase the question. What qualifies an AR-15 manufacturer to have their weapons considered teir one? (Besides having the Colt logo stamped in the receiver.)
OK, let's refrase the question. What qualifies an AR-15 manufacturer to have their weapons considered teir one?
That same info is elsewhere on this site and several others.
however, the short answer is that they must at least meet the military specifications for the M4/M16 platform with the exception that they are semi-auto and not full/burst. None of the others you listed do, despite their erroneous and fraudulent advertising claims to the contrary.
What qualifies an AR-15 manufacturer to have their weapons considered teir one?
I would say strict adherence to u.s. mil' Specifications. For mass production guns that means Colt and F.N. thats it.
Then L.M.T., B.C.M., Noveski on a smaller production level, thats about it . It is a short list.
OK, let's refrase the question. What qualifies an AR-15 manufacturer to have their weapons considered teir one? (Besides having the Colt logo stamped in the receiver.)
The first tier is easy (as there are only two companies in it). How the rest of the players fall in is really personal opinion. Here is my view of the AR world:
Tier 1
Colt
FN
(must have .mil contract to be tier one)
Tier 1.5
LMT
(.mil contract, but on a small scale)
Tier 2
BCM
CMMG
Sabre Defence
Noveske
(follow the TDP as closely as possible)
Tier 3
RRA
BM
Oly
Armalite
etc
The first tier is easy (as there are only two companies in it). How the rest of the players fall in is really personal opinion. Here is my view of the AR world:
Tier 1
Colt
FN
(must have .mil contract to be tier one)
Tier 1.5
LMT
(.mil contract, but on a small scale)
Tier 2
BCM
CMMG
Sabre Defence
Noveske
(follow the TDP as closely as possible)
Tier 3
RRA
BM
Oly
Armalite
etc
I would go as far as to separate Oly/DPMS from Bushmaster/Armalite.
I would go as far as to separate Oly/DPMS from Bushmaster/Armalite.
I would put DPMS ahead of Armalite for sure and BM has a known bolt breakage problem. Your really splitting hairs when you get down into the Tier 3 companies.
C4
Were they selling at those prices? Lots of demand, limited supply, but that is a stiff mark-up. I paid 1269 for my 6920, and the distributor (Clyde Armory) is now selling them for 1199. Of course you have to go on a wait list...
Last gun shows I saw 6920s at they were going for around 1500.
The Canadian rumor has been flying around for a while. I am inclined to be skeptical. Anybody know any more?
G&R Tactical has new 6721s for $1300, you would have to get it transferred to a dealer in your home state though.
Really? Grant, you have your store up and running? Are you going to do internet sales? (I don't see anything on your site yet... as far as I can tell.)
Just my 2 cents, but a lower is a lower. I have had Colt lowers, I have had BM lowers, and I have a DPMS lower now on my latest build. Colt lowers are like Polo jeans, you are just paying for the label. My DPMS is just as good as any other I have had. I did have an Essential Arms lower like 8 years ago, it was crap. As most large manufacturers of Military type weapons get pressed into service, IE: BM and DPMS, you are getting roughly the same quality. I have only ever used BM uppers on any of my builds (like the chromed bores), so I cannot speak with any authority as to the quality of different manufacturers.
I am starting a new build soon and want to go HSLD on the parts, what do you all recommend?
I am looking at a VLTOR upper, 16" NOVESKE barrel, haven't decided on a lower, and a Larue or Troy rail.
Any help on the lower, bolt and other parts? What do you guys like?
While the bare block of aluminum MAY in fact be virtually identical, quality of annodizing, fire control parts, and receiver extensions and buffers vary wildly.
While the bare block of aluminum MAY in fact be virtually identical, quality of annodizing, fire control parts, and receiver extensions and buffers vary wildly.
True.
Submariner
11-07-06, 07:34
Jerky is outrageously expensive at gun shows. Shop the net and have it shipped to your local FFL. Alternatively, have the lower shipped to your FFL and the uppr ans stock sent to you direct, saving the 11% FET (but losing the warranty).
As for bolt carrier groups and constituent parts, I have used Colt parts without issue for twentysomething years.
Really? Grant, you have your store up and running? Are you going to do internet sales? (I don't see anything on your site yet... as far as I can tell.)
Store is basically up now (haven't hung the signs yet). I am also going to a new shopping cart soon so am not putting any guns on the site till them.
You are welcome to call me if there is a gun you want.
C4
Store is basically up now (haven't hung the signs yet). I am also going to a new shopping cart soon so am not putting any guns on the site till them.
You are welcome to call me if there is a gun you want.
C4
Will keep that in mind. Can you PM me a list of what you have going on... especially as far as pistols go?
Will keep that in mind. Can you PM me a list of what you have going on... especially as far as pistols go?
I will be stocking Glock's and Springfield's for sure. S&W and SIG are next on the list.
C4
The first tier is easy (as there are only two companies in it). How the rest of the players fall in is really personal opinion. Here is my view of the AR world:
Tier 1
Colt
FN
(must have .mil contract to be tier one)
Tier 1.5
LMT
(.mil contract, but on a small scale)
Tier 2
BCM
CMMG
Sabre Defence
Noveske
(follow the TDP as closely as possible)
Tier 3
RRA
BM
Oly
Armalite
etc
I assume other manufacturers such as H&R and others I cannot recall do not make tier 1 because they did not produce AR's but only M16's?
Also, do all Colt model AR's meet milspec (except for select fire)?
I assume other manufacturers such as H&R and others I cannot recall do not make tier 1 because they did not produce AR's but only M16's?
Also, do all Colt model AR's meet milspec (except for select fire)?
As you know, there is little difference between a M16 and an AR15. So what it really comes down to is, do they have the official Govt TDP? That seperates them from the pack.
I think a Colt is a Colt. I believe that the Military gets the cream of the crop, and everyone else gets what's left, but I cannot prove it.
With all that said, I wouldn't snub my nose at a custom "parts" built gun. In fact, I will most likely NEVER own another Colt AR. I feel that I can build a better complete weapon than I could ever buy from a manufacturer. Why you ask? Because I can control EVERY single part that goes into the weapon! I also use better springs, upper receivers, lowers, charging handles, stocks and barrels. All for the price of what most 6920's go for. :eek:
C4
The problem I've found with building a better mousetrap is that alot of the parts just don't exist, or I would just wind up buying the Colt parts at a much greater premium elsewhere.
Not to mention that, for my purposes, Colt makes almost exactly what I need and the cost of the parts I toss isn't that high and/or can be recouped on the used market.
The problem I've found with building a better mousetrap is that alot of the parts just don't exist, or I would just wind up buying the Colt parts at a much greater premium elsewhere.
Not to mention that, for my purposes, Colt makes almost exactly what I need and the cost of the parts I toss isn't that high and/or can be recouped on the used market.
I guess what it comes down to is you have to know where to look. Colt makes VERY little in house. If you find their OEM provider than you can get things cheaper. This is where a knowledgeable dealer comes in handy (there are many on this forum that can help).
For instance, I now have contacts with FN's OEM supplier. So in the near future, I will be getting BCG's, Upper Receivers, etc, etc from where FN get't their items. ;)
C4
Submariner
11-08-06, 08:20
I think a Colt is a Colt. I believe that the Military gets the cream of the crop, and everyone else gets what's left, but I cannot prove it....
For instance, I now have contacts with FN's OEM supplier. So in the near future, I will be getting BCG's, Upper Receivers, etc, etc from where FN get't their items. ;)
Will you be getting the cream, the cottage cheese, or something in the middle from FN's OEM supplier? How will you prove it?
You might want to take Dean Caputo's operator diagnostics class. He talks about what is made in house at Colt and even has pictures to prove it.
Will you be getting the cream, the cottage cheese, or something in the middle from FN's OEM supplier? How will you prove it?
You might want to take Dean Caputo's operator diagnostics class. He talks about what is made in house at Colt and even has pictures to prove it.
It would be the cream as I wouldn't be getting what is left over. My orders would be in there just like FN's.
Colt does make some things in house, but as you know, AR parts are in scarce supply. They outsource a lot just to keep up with demand. This also applies to FN.
C4
Colt does make some things in house, but as you know, AR parts are in scarce supply. They outsource a lot just to keep up with demand.
This was my understanding and why I am so curious about where all the different manufacturer's fit in. I purchased my first AR in 1973, an SP1 Colt. It was a nice AR, but it lacked some of the newer design features of the M16A1 and M16A2 I had been shooting in the Army so I sold it (1985) with the intent to upgrade. However, by the time I got around to upgrading (2004) there were no less than 10 different AR manufacturers. I got on a few websites to try and determine if there were quality issues with any of them. I ended up going with an RRA upper with a Stag Arms lower (this was before Stag was doing uppers) and felt I had gotten a good quality carbine for a reasonable price. I have noticed no perceptible difference between the quality of the AR I now own and any of the M16's I was issued. I know my rifle doesn't meet the milspec in many areas, but I wasn't aware that the manufacturer's (essentially CMT and Wilson) would be considered teir 3. I had been seriously considering one the BCM M4 MPI'd uppers for my next build up until this point. Does no one besides Colt produce an upper which would meet the milspec (minus FA parts)? I guess I figured that the BCM upper did that, but now I'm not so sure.
This was my understanding and why I am so curious about where all the different manufacturer's fit in. I purchased my first AR in 1973, an SP1 Colt. It was a nice AR, but it lacked some of the newer design features of the M16A1 and M16A2 I had been shooting in the Army so I sold it (1985) with the intent to upgrade. However, by the time I got around to upgrading (2004) there were no less than 10 different AR manufacturers. I got on a few websites to try and determine if there were quality issues with any of them. I ended up going with an RRA upper with a Stag Arms lower (this was before Stag was doing uppers) and felt I had gotten a good quality carbine for a reasonable price. I have noticed no perceptible difference between the quality of the AR I now own and any of the M16's I was issued. I know my rifle doesn't meet the milspec in many areas, but I wasn't aware that the manufacturer's (essentially CMT and Wilson) would be considered teir 3. I had been seriously considering one the BCM M4 MPI'd uppers for my next build up until this point. Does no one besides Colt produce an upper which would meet the milspec (minus FA parts)? I guess I figured that the BCM upper did that, but now I'm not so sure.
Not to put down your choices in AR's, but if you start looking at what quality parts cost (from materials used to how they test them) you will soon realize why the RRA or Stag was such a good price (compared to the Colt). On the outside, all AR's look virtually the same, so you have to dive into the internals (which is the only part that really matters) to really understand what your buying. Remember the rule, you get what you pay for!
As I stated, companies that have the official US Govt. issued TDP are Tier 1. If you buy a BCM, LMT, CMMG, Sabre Defence weapon, I believe that you are getting a product that follows the TDP VERY closely (maybe in some ways better) and is much cheaper. No they might not have an offical copy of the TDP, but they are aware of the specs and do their best to follow them.
Make sense?
C4
It would be the cream as I wouldn't be getting what is left over. My orders would be in there just like FN's.
Colt does make some things in house, but as you know, AR parts are in scarce supply. They outsource a lot just to keep up with demand. This also applies to FN.
C4
So does this mean that your parts will be inspected to the same criteria as FN's parts?
I believe that many people (not necessarily you, Grant) assume that just because they get parts from the same source as FN or Colt that they are getting the same parts. I don't believe that this is quite so. Most DOD contractors will outsource fabrication of components. They will, however, have specific and rigid inspection criteria (e.g., dimensional tolerances, non-destructive testing certifications...) that must be met before the parts can be received into inventory and subsequently be built up into a weapon system that people's lives depend upon.
These sources may in fact be great machine shops, forging houses, etc., but they do not all have the capability of designing and developing a weapon system on their own that actually works (i.e., passes rigorous qualification tests). All they may know is what the requirements are to "build to print" for the tier-one contractor(s). These requirements may or may not be the same for lower-tier contractors that they may also be suppliers to, because these lower-tier contractors did not design/develop the weapon systems and qualify them to military requirements; they may have merely reverse engineered something that looks similar, substituted less-expensive materials and processes where they thought they could get away with it, and marketed their wares to less-demanding consumers.
So, unless you have access to the engineering requirements for FN (or Colt) and demand that parts be inspected to the same criteria at the source and/or have your receiving inspector do the same, how do you know that you are getting parts that are equal to those demanded by those that own the TDP?
So does this mean that your parts will be inspected to the same criteria as FN's parts?
I believe that many people (not necessarily you, Grant) assume that just because they get parts from the same source as FN or Colt that they are getting the same parts. I don't believe that this is quite so. Most DOD contractors will outsource fabrication of components. They will, however, have specific and rigid inspection criteria (e.g., dimensional tolerances, non-destructive testing certifications...) that must be met before the parts can be received into inventory and subsequently be built up into a weapon system that people's lives depend upon.
These sources may in fact be great machine shops, forging houses, etc., but they do not all have the capability of designing and developing a weapon system on their own that actually works (i.e., passes rigorous qualification tests). All they may know is what the requirements are to "build to print" for the tier-one contractor(s). These requirements may or may not be the same for lower-tier contractors that they may also be suppliers to, because these lower-tier contractors did not design/develop the weapon systems and qualify them to military requirements; they may have merely reverse engineered something that looks similar, substituted less-expensive materials and processes where they thought they could get away with it, and marketed their wares to less-demanding consumers.
So, unless you have access to the engineering requirements for FN (or Colt) and demand that parts be inspected to the same criteria at the source and/or have your receiving inspector do the same, how do you know that you are getting parts that are equal to those demanded by those that own the TDP?
I only buy my parts from OEM's the supply to the Tier 1 manufacturers. I am not really sure which OEM manufacturers you have dealt with, but I have NEVER found one that builds two seperate lines and or seperates the best from the worst and ships the worst to everyone else (sorry).
So for instance, the supplier to FN does its own QC before they EVER ship to FN. Why? Because if it is junk then FN is going to reject it just the same. So there is no need for me to get ahold of the TDP just to make sure that this OEM manufacturer is following the spec. Companies can BARELY keep up with producing parts for the big boys, let alone produce a line that is less quality. They do things one way (to the spec) and that is it. Make sense???
C4
I only buy my parts from OEM's the supply to the Tier 1 manufacturers. I am not really sure which OEM manufacturers you have dealt with, but I have NEVER found one that builds two seperate lines and or seperates the best from the worst and ships the worst to everyone else (sorry).
So for instance, the supplier to FN does its own QC before they EVER ship to FN. Why? Because if it is junk then FN is going to reject it just the same. So there is no need for me to get ahold of the TDP just to make sure that this OEM manufacturer is following the spec. Companies can BARELY keep up with producing parts for the big boys, let alone produce a line that is less quality. They do things one way (to the spec) and that is it. Make sense???
C4
Grant,
With your source you may indeed get the same product that FN gets. My post, however, was meant to point out that suppliers like CMT, that are known to produce for Colt and others, may (and probably do) have to build parts to different dimensional requirements (nominal ± tolerance) and may (and probably do) have to inspect parts to different criteria. Different customers have different requirements. The more sophisticated customers have different process requirements as well as dimensional requirements.
Besides the supply/demand imbalance, Colts (and surely FNs) just cost more to produce than commercial lookalikes because of their requirements. Does it cost more to have an engineering staff capable of designing and developing new products in response to US Gov RFPs and competitions? Does it cost more to proof-pressure fire and MPI every article? Does it cost more to shot peen bolts? Does it cost more to inspect to proper dimensional tolerances? Does it cost more to reject/scrap non-compliant parts? Why do they insist on these requirements? Their products have to meet requirements. They have much to lose if they do not. Do the Tier-3 vendors have these same requirements of CMT when they purchase parts from them?
I don't know who makes them, but I have often wondered what happens to bolts that fail MPI required by Colt, FN, or LMT. Are they destroyed? Or perhaps do they end up in a Tier-3 "M4"? What is the pass/fail criteria for MPI? I suspect that there is an allowable flaw size allowed by the customer. If I pay extra for MPI on a CMT bolt, is it inspected to the same criteria (i.e., allowable flaw size) allowed by the Tier Ones?
Grant,
With your source you may indeed get the same product that FN gets. My post, however, was meant to point out that suppliers like CMT, that are known to produce for Colt and others, may (and probably do) have to build parts to different dimensional requirements (nominal ± tolerance) and may (and probably do) have to inspect parts to different criteria. Different customers have different requirements. The more sophisticated customers have different process requirements as well as dimensional requirements.
Besides the supply/demand imbalance, Colts (and surely FNs) just cost more to produce than commercial lookalikes because of their requirements. Does it cost more to have an engineering staff capable of designing and developing new products in response to US Gov RFPs and competitions? Does it cost more to proof-pressure fire and MPI every article? Does it cost more to shot peen bolts? Does it cost more to inspect to proper dimensional tolerances? Does it cost more to reject/scrap non-compliant parts? Why do they insist on these requirements? Their products have to meet requirements. They have much to lose if they do not. Do the Tier-3 vendors have these same requirements of CMT when they purchase parts from them?
I don't know who makes them, but I have often wondered what happens to bolts that fail MPI required by Colt, FN, or LMT. Are they destroyed? Or perhaps do they end up in a Tier-3 "M4"? What is the pass/fail criteria for MPI? I suspect that there is an allowable flaw size allowed by the customer. If I pay extra for MPI on a CMT bolt, is it inspected to the same criteria (i.e., allowable flaw size) allowed by the Tier Ones?
I really think that it would be to hard to have an employee inspec a product for one critical dim. and then ignore that dim. on the next batch that comes out because they are going to a tier 3 company. I just don't think it would happen because it is just a matter of time before they get confused on what parts for what company.
I also don't think that a lot of the tier 3 companies buy a lot of their parts from the same OEM manufacturers (as the prices are too high). For instance, bolts should be made out of 154 carpenter steel. I think a lot of tier 3 companies do not use this steel as it is too costly and why we see them with so many broken bolts. If you ever doubt this, simply look at Pat Rogers book of broken parts. :D
You bring up an interesting comment on MPI testing and rejecting a bolt or barrel that has a flaw in it. The only company that I would swear on my fathers grave to reject a flawed barrel or bolt would be BCM (because Paul has don't it with an entire batch of barrels). This cost him a lot of money. Can I gurantee that other companies just don't pass them on done the line (like into the Colt Civy line of AR's)? Nope.
The other interesting thing about HP testing a bolt or barrel is that you are basically taking one of its lives away by doing so. So what if a bolt could only handle two high pressure loads and you just took one away by doing the HP test? Is that a good idea and or the best way to test an item? I don't have an answer to the question, but just some food for thought.
C4
I think Aubrey makes a good point/question.
Many times, I'm handed the AR Djour at the local shop, and am told, "they make 'em for Colt".
And? Grant, could be entirely right, or just possibly they do make to different runs of parts. I don't know. What I do know, is when I get the Colt, that it does meet the criteria, and they will stand behind it.
Not to say others, including Grant, won't. But, if I need the warrantt, I may not get to use it.
I guess the only way to know is to ask the OEM supplier.
RE: the High pressure test, I thought it was MPI for flaws after the test, and that was the point. Am I wrong?
Bob
Lots of manufacturers, especially machine shops, build different products for different customers.
I think Aubrey makes a good point/question.
Many times, I'm handed the AR Djour at the local shop, and am told, "they make 'em for Colt".
And? Grant, could be entirely right, or just possibly they do make to different runs of parts. I don't know. What I do know, is when I get the Colt, that it does meet the criteria, and they will stand behind it.
Not to say others, including Grant, won't. But, if I need the warrantt, I may not get to use it.
I guess the only way to know is to ask the OEM supplier.
RE: the High pressure test, I thought it was MPI for flaws after the test, and that was the point. Am I wrong?
Bob
HPT is done first and then MPI to look for flaws.
C4
Lots of manufacturers, especially machine shops, build different products for different customers.
Sure, if they are making lawn mower parts. I don't know of any of the Tier 1 OEM suppliers that making different grades of parts. For instance, the FN OEM supplier couldn't give me a single bolt as everyone they make is spoken for till at least Spring. :mad: Do you really think they have time to make a cheaper product when they cannot keep up with the Mil-Spec ones??
I am sure there are many a gun dealer that will tell you thata BM or a DPMS is tier 1 and made with all mil-spec parts. The problem is that they no idea what that actually means and couldn't spot the difference if you showed it to them.
I know that myself and other dealers on this board talk to and work out deals with tier 1 OEM providers for gear. I am 100% confident in the parts I buy, use and sell and where they come from.
C4
Grant,
That is what I thought, HPT, then MPI to see if the HPT caused a flaw.
Also, I'm not, and I don't think Aubrey is, questioning your ethics, etc. I'm sure your products are top notch, judging by the rest of what you sell.
But, I'm just not signing off on the " made by the same guys" argument I hear form the local know it all at the shop. Personally, all I ask at gun shops is " How much" thats the only thing they do know.......sometimes.
Bob
Do you really think they have time to make a cheaper product when they cannot keep up with the Mil-Spec ones??
I think what one would be worried more about in that situation is that when they do release items outside that Mil. contract, is it because they had time to crank out some extras, or because they didn't pass inspection but are "still good"? G&R is definitely an exception, not the rule, in knowing the difference, but since you're not there hand-picking your products...
It's easy for quality to slip a bit in times of high production -- it happens at my factory -- good manufacturers will keep customers from getting parts outside of their requested specifications, but that doesn't mean they might not offer them to other customers.
Submariner
11-09-06, 20:31
I know that myself and other dealers on this board talk to and work out deals with tier 1 OEM providers for gear. I am 100% confident in the parts I buy, use and sell and where they come from.
A problem comes up, though, if I want to sell a part I have purchased from you. My stating (truthfully) that this part came from you as a tier-one OEM part (truthfully) may not mean as much to my buyer as having a "C"- or "MPC"-marked part. Even if he beleives me, more likely than not he is going to want a discount. That is the nature of this market.
Yawn. Every week for the past 15 years, there has been a different rumor as to why Colts are about to disappear off the market and why I should pay a 100% markup because of the rumor du jour.. Funny how none of them pan out.
This latest rumor is, like many others, sprinkled with a small bit of truth. Colt bought out one of their major subs (and competitors, in some respects) in Canada almost a year ago - namely, Diemaco. There are lots of reasons I can think of as to why it would make no sense to move all the operations to Diemaco, not the least of which is current demand and capacity.
Colt is in the business of selling guns. They can barely keep up with demand. Why why would they, in effect, shrink their operations by restricting production to Canada, and also shrink their own market by restricting sales? None of that makes any sense, even for Colt (which admittedly has made some boneheaded decisions before).
A problem comes up, though, if I want to sell a part I have purchased from you. My stating (truthfully) that this part came from you as a tier-one OEM part (truthfully) may not mean as much to my buyer as having a "C"- or "MPC"-marked part. Even if he beleives me, more likely than not he is going to want a discount. That is the nature of this market.
Oh sure, but you also didn't pay the same for it! ;)
C4
Submariner
11-10-06, 07:38
Oh sure, but you also didn't pay the same for it! ;)
C4
OK. What is your delivered price on a complete tier 1 MP bolt with an M4 extractor spring and black buffer?
OK. What is your delivered price on a complete tier 1 MP bolt with an M4 extractor spring and black buffer?
I would say that the CMT MP tested bolts I sell with the black insert and Crane O-Ring are a pretty good setup (have sold hundreds of them) and never had one returned. I also use them in my personal weapons that I attend classes with.
With that said, the bolts I will be getting from FN OEM is some months out and prices may fluctuate.
C4
A problem comes up, though, if I want to sell a part I have purchased from you. My stating (truthfully) that this part came from you as a tier-one OEM part (truthfully) may not mean as much to my buyer as having a "C"- or "MPC"-marked part. Even if he beleives me, more likely than not he is going to want a discount. That is the nature of this market.
Buying with resale in mind is like getting married with a prenup.
Be the pig, not the chicken.
Buying with resale in mind is like getting married with a prenup.
Be the pig, not the chicken.
Yeah, I gotta agree. I am really not concerned about someones ability to re-sell a product that I offer. I also don't care about brand name recognition. I just care about quality gear at a fair price VS being price gouged on a brand name. No offense intended Paul.
C4
Submariner
11-10-06, 12:55
No offense taken.
I have been made a beleiver in having a spare bolt for each upper. I can get a new Colt bolt as described above for $75. If, for whatever reason, I ever had to sell it, it sells itself rather than my having to explain to the buyer who Grant is and why the buyer should beleive me and you that this is the same or better than Colt.
On pre-nups, let's try this: Your Mom dies leaving your Dad alone. A younger woman marries your father, complete with Viagra. His blood flows farther south than than it should and he titles everything jointly with his bride. Then he dies. Joint titling passes the property that he and your mother accumulated to his new widow and not you. Still think pre-nups suck?
I just had a client die for whom I had drafted a pre-nup. He died last week at 84 (she is 66 and he was her fourth husband; all the rest had died). She hates me.:D
BTW, a pre-nup, properly drafted, lays out in advance how assets are divided in the event of divorce, too. Proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance.:cool:
No offense taken.
I have been made a beleiver in having a spare bolt for each upper. I can get a new Colt bolt as described above for $75. If, for whatever reason, I ever had to sell it, it sells itself rather than my having to explain to the buyer who Grant is and why the buyer should beleive me and you that this is the same or better than Colt.
On pre-nups, let's try this: Your Mom dies leaving your Dad alone. A younger woman marries your father, complete with Viagra. His blood flows farther south than than it should and he titles everything jointly with his bride. Then he dies. Joint titling passes the property that he and your mother accumulated to his new widow and not you. Still think pre-nups suck?
I just had a client die for whom I had drafted a pre-nup. He died last week at 84 (she is 66 and he was her fourth husband; all the rest had died). She hates me.:D
BTW, a pre-nup, properly drafted, lays out in advance how assets are divided in the event of divorce, too. Proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance.:cool:
Spare bolts are and excellent idea. The issues with the Colt bolts is that they are expensive and hard to come by sometimes. You can get tier one bolts for about $20-$30 bolts less.
C4
No offense taken.
I have been made a beleiver in having a spare bolt for each upper. I can get a new Colt bolt as described above for $75. If, for whatever reason, I ever had to sell it, it sells itself rather than my having to explain to the buyer who Grant is and why the buyer should beleive me and you that this is the same or better than Colt.
On pre-nups, let's try this: Your Mom dies leaving your Dad alone. A younger woman marries your father, complete with Viagra. His blood flows farther south than than it should and he titles everything jointly with his bride. Then he dies. Joint titling passes the property that he and your mother accumulated to his new widow and not you. Still think pre-nups suck?
I just had a client die for whom I had drafted a pre-nup. He died last week at 84 (she is 66 and he was her fourth husband; all the rest had died). She hates me.:D
BTW, a pre-nup, properly drafted, lays out in advance how assets are divided in the event of divorce, too. Proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance.:cool:
If all you ever do is worry about worst case scenarios you're going to have a miserable life.
Submariner
11-10-06, 15:29
With that said, the bolts I will be getting from FN OEM is some months out and prices may fluctuate.
...
Spare bolts are and excellent idea. The issues with the Colt bolts is that they are expensive and hard to come by sometimes. You can get tier one bolts for about $20-$30 bolts less.
In an age of fiat money and Nancy Pelosi/Hillary Clinton, I'll take the Colt blts today over cheaper (maybe) FN OEM bolts later. No offense, Grant.
rob_s-Miserable? Nope. Folks pay me good money to plan around the bad stuff (that not only can but does happen) that few think about. Client's children think I'm golden. I helped preserve their inheritance.
I would say that the CMT MP tested bolts I sell with the black insert and Crane O-Ring are a pretty good setup (have sold hundreds of them) and never had one returned. I also use them in my personal weapons that I attend classes with.
C4
Grant, if I understand correctly, you are indicating the CMT bolts are an equivelant quality to the Colt. Is this correct?
Gentlemen,
I understand the teir system for ARs, and I understand why people think this way, as it is a measurable criteria. However, let me throw this out there for discussion.
Once upon a time I was responsible for an arms room that contained both Colt M16A2s and FN M16A2s. The unit in question had sent small detachments from each company to Desert Storm, and when those detachments returned, their Colt rifles were replaced with FNs. approximately five years before I got there. So, about 1/4 of the rifles were FNs. The remaining Colt's in the arms room had been there probably twice as long as the FNs.
The FNs were nowhere near the quality of the Colts. Not even in the same weight class. Poor finish, worse parts fit, premature wear, more parts breakage, you name it.
Now, before anyone accuses me of drinking the Colt Kool Ade, I've never owned a Colt AR. My point is that just because company X is working off of the government specs for the product, it doesn't mean they are producing a superior product, or even a product that is equal to other "tier one" products.
Also, every company out there is capable of putting some crap on the retail shelf, and most of the companies in question have put out some excellent rifles. I think there is too much generalization in making decisions based entirely on the "tier one manufacturer" criteria. Find out who is making good (and bad) rifles today, inspect the gun before laying down the money, and vote with your greenbacks. Believe it or not, the U.S. Military has not always made the best decisions with regard to weaponry. This was also several years ago, so I don't want anyone to think it necessarily reflects on current production. It's just an example of a wide disparity of quality in weapons that were made to "The" spec.
I also completely agree with Grant's point about building instead of buying complete rifles. My big issue is that by the time I've bought a rifle and changed the parts that I want changed, I would have been out less cash than if I had just built from scratch. This is especially true for SBRs or other specialty guns.
Grant, if I understand correctly, you are indicating the CMT bolts are an equivelant quality to the Colt. Is this correct?
I would say that their DAMN close for about $20 less & come with a Crane O-ring installed.
C4
Gentlemen,
I understand the teir system for ARs, and I understand why people think this way, as it is a measurable criteria. However, let me throw this out there for discussion.
Once upon a time I was responsible for an arms room that contained both Colt M16A2s and FN M16A2s. The unit in question had sent small detachments from each company to Desert Storm, and when those detachments returned, their Colt rifles were replaced with FNs. approximately five years before I got there. So, about 1/4 of the rifles were FNs. The remaining Colt's in the arms room had been there probably twice as long as the FNs.
The FNs were nowhere near the quality of the Colts. Not even in the same weight class. Poor finish, worse parts fit, premature wear, more parts breakage, you name it.
Now, before anyone accuses me of drinking the Colt Kool Ade, I've never owned a Colt AR. My point is that just because company X is working off of the government specs for the product, it doesn't mean they are producing a superior product, or even a product that is equal to other "tier one" products.
Also, every company out there is capable of putting some crap on the retail shelf, and most of the companies in question have put out some excellent rifles. I think there is too much generalization in making decisions based entirely on the "tier one manufacturer" criteria. Find out who is making good (and bad) rifles today, inspect the gun before laying down the money, and vote with your greenbacks. Believe it or not, the U.S. Military has not always made the best decisions with regard to weaponry. This was also several years ago, so I don't want anyone to think it necessarily reflects on current production. It's just an example of a wide disparity of quality in weapons that were made to "The" spec.
I also completely agree with Grant's point about building instead of buying complete rifles. My big issue is that by the time I've bought a rifle and changed the parts that I want changed, I would have been out less cash than if I had just built from scratch. This is especially true for SBRs or other specialty guns.
I would agree 100% with you. EVERY COMPANY puts out lemons. I have seen Colts that were horrible and have issues. You have to play the odds though. Meaning, if I took 100 tier 3 AR's and 100 tier 1 M16's and we ran them all the same (read hard) you would see the tier 3 AR's drop off at a much faster rate than say the tier 1's.
Everyone has at least owned a tier 3 AR that ran like a top for 10,000rds or more. It does happen, but I think it is more a roll of the dice then anything.
I also love folks that sing the praises of the tier 3 AR's. When asked how many rounds do they have through them they respond "1,200." :rolleyes: Most crappy AR's will not show ANY issues till around 3,000-5,000 rounds. This is about the time we see bolts go.
A quality AR should be able to run without any issues till at leat 8k to 10k. This doesn't mean that you don't do PM's on them (change springs and extractor inserts). This simply means that all metal parts should function properly.
For the record, I no longer own Colts and don't plan to so my kool aid cup is empty.
C4
I agree with Grant's "play the averages" theory. I just think this has more to do with the individual company's QC/QA more than what spec they are working off of. Consistently good QC/QA would, at least for me, be more important than what blueprint was used.
I also don't want anyone to think my "Colt Kool Ade" comment was aimed at them. It just happens that in my particular example, the Colts were the superior weapons.
QC matters a lot. The only problem that QC doesn't help is with materials used. Meaning, that quality steel (used in bolts and barrels) is much more expensive and harder to find. I would much rather have a weapon that didn't match and had "mill marks" on it than a weapon that was flawless on the outside, but used the cheapest parts on the inside.
C4
You can debate this stuff all day long. The proof is in the pudding. Look at the guys who regulary put thousands of rounds through their AR's. Pat Rogers comes to mind, as he is about the only guy I know of that regulary does this, and posts his findings. We know from reading his posts that Colt works, period. We know there are several promising vendors, such as BCM, LMT, and CMT/Stag. I think time will bear out that their quality meets or exceeds Colt, but until they have an equal track record, we can't claim that for gospel. Then there is the rest of the pack, BM, RRA, DPMS, Oly, etc. Some are good, some maybe not so good, but I haven't heard of anyone throwing thousands of rounds through them without any problems.
That being said, I believe that you can build your own M-4, with non-Colt parts, and have a weapon that equals the Colt in quaility and reliability. So if the situation is such that, as stated at the beginning of this thread, Colt weapons are twice the price, or even unavailable, no worries. You have the option of building your own from alternate vendors and driving on. I have just re-built my primary carbine with a BCM upper from Paul and CMT everything else from Grant, and look forward to ringing it out in the coming months. Time will only tell if it will have the reliability of a "tier 1" weapon, but I am confident it will.
You can debate this stuff all day long. The proof is in the pudding. Look at the guys who regulary put thousands of rounds through their AR's. Pat Rogers comes to mind, as he is about the only guy I know of that regulary does this, and posts his findings. We know from reading his posts that Colt works, period. We know there are several promising vendors, such as BCM, LMT, and CMT/Stag. I think time will bear out that their quality meets or exceeds Colt, but until they have an equal track record, we can't claim that for gospel. Then there is the rest of the pack, BM, RRA, DPMS, Oly, etc. Some are good, some maybe not so good, but I haven't heard of anyone throwing thousands of rounds through them without any problems.
That being said, I believe that you can build your own M-4, with non-Colt parts, and have a weapon that equals the Colt in quaility and reliability. So if the situation is such that, as stated at the beginning of this thread, Colt weapons are twice the price, or even unavailable, no worries. You have the option of building your own from alternate vendors and driving on. I have just re-built my primary carbine with a BCM upper from Paul and CMT everything else from Grant, and look forward to ringing it out in the coming months. Time will only tell if it will have the reliability of a "tier 1" weapon, but I am confident it will.
A lot of truth in your post. Pat Rogers book of broken AR parts tells all. If anyone ever takes a class with him (which I recommend), make sure to ask to see the book (unless you have a love for tier 3 manufacturers). :D
C4
I have heard from numerous places that CMT manufactures receivers for Colt, Stag Arms and the new S&W M&P rifle. If this is true, is Colt Tier 1 because they won the contract with the mil?
A lot of truth in your post. Pat Rogers book of broken AR parts tells all. If anyone ever takes a class with him (which I recommend), make sure to ask to see the book (unless you have a love for tier 3 manufacturers). :D
C4
Hey Grant, Matt here from Oregon. You selling rifles now? I saw a thread that you were. I think you should just start building your own and selling them, call them C4 M4's :) Later
m
I have heard from numerous places that CMT manufactures receivers for Colt, Stag Arms and the new S&W M&P rifle. If this is true, is Colt Tier 1 because they won the contract with the mil?
CMT does in fact manufacturer receivers for Colt and S&W. Colt also does their own in house (S&W does not).
If you read what I wrote in this thread, parts are in such short supply that companies (even tier 1's) have to get parts wherever they can.
Colt/FN for instance will QC against the TDP where as a tier 3 company will QC against fit and finish. :rolleyes:
Having a .Mil contract DOES make you a tier 1 manufacturer.
C4
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.