View Full Version : Something interesting re: the CR6920 (might not be so bad after all)
I ran across an interesting flavor of LE6920. They were originally destined for the Mexican police, but Colt made too many or the contract fell through or whatever, and they were sold off as surplus basically to the US consumer market. So they're kind of interesting in the sense that they're legit contract rifles that ended up on the commercial market. Now that contract was with Mexico, and maybe they have lower standards than the US government-I don't know-but one would assume being a government entity that they would get the full TDP treatment.
The rifles were made sometime around 2014ish maybe, and they share some of the same odd characteristics as the newer LE6920s and CR6920s. The barrels are marked with the separated MP, and the extractors are marked CE. The handguards do not have the glue, and the stocks, while having cage codes, do have the little circular mark where a logo can be placed in the mold.
So maybe there's hope that the subcontracted parts are being held to TDP, and that the new CR models are still full spec like the previous LE line. I wish Colt would be more transparent and consistent about guaranteeing full TDP spec on all of their ARs, like they were briefly in the late 2000s, but I guess you just have to accept the things you cannot change when it comes to them.
There is one bugaboo in this theory, though. The rifle I examined had an F marked front sight and C marked carrier. It is disconcerting that the CR models don't have F marked front sights, because that kind of implies that those at a bare minimum aren't being held to TDP standards. I think it's super strange they would do that regardless, because I didn't even know you could get non F marked front sights anymore. I thought they were essentially the stuff of retro builders these days.
minuteman1636
05-25-21, 06:20
'F' marked front sight was only necessary when two different heights of front sight bases were being manufactured. That is no longer the case so the 'F' mark isn't necessary. 'F' marked fsb's that make it onto CR6920's are leftover .mil fsb's. Not marking the fsb's were not required by contract eliminates a production step/costs.
The 'C' mark on the carrier is a .mil requirement. Again, not necessary on the CR6920. Not putting a 'C' on the carrier eliminates a production step/cost.
Colt is streamlining their production process to eliminate as many redundant or unnecessary steps as possible which is part of the reason they have now stopped milling off lever stops. I understand that people don't like it, but I understand them doing it and don't blame them in the highly competitive industry where they are additionally burdened by union costs.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
'F' marked front sight was only necessary when two different heights of front sight bases were being manufactured. That is no longer the case so the 'F' mark isn't necessary. 'F' marked fsb's that make it onto CR6920's are leftover .mil fsb's. Not marking the fsb's were not required by contract eliminates a production step/costs.
The 'C' mark on the carrier is a .mil requirement. Again, not necessary on the CR6920. Not putting a 'C' on the carrier eliminates a production step/cost.
Colt is streamlining their production process to eliminate as many redundant or unnecessary steps as possible which is part of the reason they have now stopped milling off lever stops. I understand that people don't like it, but I understand them doing it and don't blame them in the highly competitive industry where they are additionally burdened by union costs.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Skipping those marks isn't saving them any money, so I think that's a non starter right there, as far as arguments go.
Still, if the marks were the only thing they skipped, obviously nobody really cares. But the problem is that it suggests they're no longer running the single production line, which means we could be getting just about anything. The CR could be anything ranging from a full spec 6920 to a glorified Expanse. People no longer know what they're getting for their money.
minuteman1636
05-25-21, 06:56
Skipping those marks isn't saving them any money, so I think that's a non starter right there, as far as arguments go.
Still, if the marks were the only thing they skipped, obviously nobody really cares. But the problem is that it suggests they're no longer running the single production line, which means we could be getting just about anything. The CR could be anything ranging from a full spec 6920 to a glorified Expanse. People no longer know what they're getting for their money.Every mark on a part requires someone to change a tool, perform a step by hand, etc. That absolutely translates to manhours and additional production dollars.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Every mark on a part requires someone to change a tool, perform a step by hand, etc. That absolutely translates to manhours and additional production dollars.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Marking things is pretty seamless, and doesn't generally add much if anything to the cost of a product, especially if cosmetics aren't an issue, as they aren't in this case. The cost of operating two assembly lines would FAR outweigh any savings they might achieve by skipping the marks, IF that's the only thing they were skipping.
That's just the sight, though, so hopefully the barrels and bolts are still up to snuff.
Marking things is pretty seamless, and doesn't generally add much if anything to the cost of a product, especially if cosmetics aren't an issue, as they aren't in this case. The cost of operating two assembly lines would FAR outweigh any savings they might achieve by skipping the marks, IF that's the only thing they were skipping.
That's just the sight, though, so hopefully the barrels and bolts are still up to snuff.
What makes you think that the FSBs themselves aren't "up to snuff"? They are still "F" height despite not having the mark, so I'm not really seeing the issue???
What makes you think that the FSBs themselves aren't "up to snuff"? They are still "F" height despite not having the mark, so I'm not really seeing the issue???
Well the implication is that there can no longer be a single assembly line, because those couldn't be delivered.
Well the implication is that there can no longer be a single assembly line, because those couldn't be delivered.
What do you mean they couldn’t be delivered? They are being delivered. Maybe I’m confused. What about not having a marking makes them undeliverable?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What do you mean they couldn’t be delivered? They are being delivered. Maybe I’m confused. What about not having a marking makes them undeliverable?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To my knowledge, they still couldn't be delivered to the government with those FSBs. If that's changed, somebody please correct me.
Hammer_Man
05-25-21, 11:04
There are five CR6920 rifles on the shelf where I work. Two of them have cage code marked upper receivers, and came packed in the old school blue plastic bag. The other three do not have cage code marked upper receivers, and came packed in a clear plastic bag. Some of them have Schmid Tool markings on the selectors and trigger groups, some don’t.
There are five CR6920 rifles on the shelf where I work. Two of them have cage code marked upper receivers, and came packed in the old school blue plastic bag. The other three do not have cage code marked upper receivers, and came packed in a clear plastic bag. Some of them have Schmid Tool markings on the selectors and trigger groups, some don’t.
Are the extractors marked CE? I've not been able to find out what that means, but apparently Colt has been using them since maybe 2014ish. Ditto for the separated MP mark.
Like was said above, the F marking was to distinguish the flat top FSB from the FSB used on the A2 models. The A2 rifles arent being made anymore so they are only making the F height FSB, so there is no reason for the markings anymore.
One YouTube loudmouth can sure create a lot of havoc.
To my knowledge, they still couldn't be delivered to the government with those FSBs. If that's changed, somebody please correct me.
Which government? The US doesn’t purchase them from Colt anymore. Why make a mark for something you aren’t doing? That’s like spray painting a number in your car for a race you’re not entering.
Does having the F there improve performance?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which government? The US doesn’t purchase them from Colt anymore. Why make a mark for something you aren’t doing? That’s like spray painting a number in your car for a race you’re not entering.
Does having the F there improve performance?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pretty sure they're still supplying some stuff.
One YouTube loudmouth can sure create a lot of havoc.
That's a very disrespectful way to describe him. I don't see where he's said or done anything to deserve that.
It does matter, because people deserve to know what they're paying for, and if Colt is going to be opaque about it then it's up to us internet commandos to try and ferret out the truth. If the parts are to TDP, we know from experience that the bolts will outlast a typical barrel, and said barrel will be around 1 MOA. If not to TDP, we also know from experience that bolts will likely break much sooner and barrels will be well in excess of 1 MOA. Extractors and springs perhaps even more importantly were really something to write home about in the glory days of the LE6920, as well.
minuteman1636
05-25-21, 20:11
That's a very disrespectful way to describe him. I don't see where he's said or done anything to deserve that.
It does matter, because people deserve to know what they're paying for, and if Colt is going to be opaque about it then it's up to us internet commandos to try and ferret out the truth. If the parts are to TDP, we know from experience that the bolts will outlast a typical barrel, and said barrel will be around 1 MOA. If not to TDP, we also know from experience that bolts will likely break much sooner and barrels will be well in excess of 1 MOA. Extractors and springs perhaps even more importantly were really something to write home about in the glory days of the LE6920, as well.All the drama about Colt part markings is kind of nonsense because nobody is demanding part markings from any other manufacturer on their AR-15's.
Now that Colt is trying to refine/modernize their production processes to put them in line with their peers it is unacceptable for some reason.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
All the drama about Colt part markings is kind of nonsense because nobody is demanding part markings from any other manufacturer on their AR-15's.
Now that Colt is trying to refine/modernize their production processes to put them in line with their peers it is unacceptable for some reason.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Other manufacturers don't own the TDP. The whole thing with Colt is that you were getting the same parts they used in contract rifles, so you knew they were up to snuff. There was a certain degree of transparency because Colt let journalists in the factory to see the single production line, and consumers could see the cage codes and markings for themselves. Now we have no idea what's going on.
15 years ago you could get one off the same assembly line as the military M4s. And it was totally to the TDP. Except it had a sear block, a web, no selector stops, half moon carrier, 16” barrel, no bayonet lug, screw pivot pin, .170” fcg pins, notched hammer. But by god there was a C right there on the upper.
The C stamp on the receiver and the carrier is the only thing that’s really changed. The F stamped FSB went away when they retooled the forge.
The cage marked extractors and charging handles are a recent thing.
I’ve seen unmarked, C stamped, and now cage stamped disconnectors over the years.
Barrels without date stamps.
Colt is inconsistent with markings. Just because they’re doing it today doesn’t mean anything about what they may or may not have done or will do.
Other manufacturers don't own the TDP. The whole thing with Colt is that you were getting the same parts they used in contract rifles, so you knew they were up to snuff. There was a certain degree of transparency because Colt let journalists in the factory to see the single production line, and consumers could see the cage codes and markings for themselves. Now we have no idea what's going on.
You act as though markings are the important thing. Why should Colt make markings for contracts they don’t have?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You act as though markings are the important thing. Why should Colt make markings for contracts they don’t have?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again, pretty sure they're still supplying things.
15 years ago you could get one off the same assembly line as the military M4s. And it was totally to the TDP. Except it had a sear block, a web, no selector stops, half moon carrier, 16” barrel, no bayonet lug, screw pivot pin, .170” fcg pins, notched hammer. But by god there was a C right there on the upper.
The C stamp on the receiver and the carrier is the only thing that’s really changed. The F stamped FSB went away when they retooled the forge.
The cage marked extractors and charging handles are a recent thing.
I’ve seen unmarked, C stamped, and now cage stamped disconnectors over the years.
Barrels without date stamps.
Colt is inconsistent with markings. Just because they’re doing it today doesn’t mean anything about what they may or may not have done or will do.
I've not had any post holding company half moon carriers. All the full TDP stuff I have all has standard pins and M16 carriers. Uppers are all C marked.
Sounds like you have guns built between ‘08-‘18.
The only thing, IMO, on a Colt that sets them apart are their barrel and BCGs.
Again, pretty sure they're still supplying things.
They are supplying front sights? Where the F is important?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sounds like you have guns built between ‘08-‘18.
The only thing, IMO, on a Colt that sets them apart are their barrel and BCGs.
I mean, yea, that's a very fair assessment, but you say that like it's nothing to write home about. That's like saying the only thing that separates Toyota from Ford is the engines and transmissions.
You arguably cannot find harder wearing, more accurate chrome lined barrels anywhere, and that's a minor miracle because you get to have your cake and eat it too, and for a really good price. And the only better bolts are KAC, and, again, Colt's bolts are-or were-miraculous for the price.
But what made them great was full adherence to the TDP, and we don't know what parts, if any, are currently being produced to those standards.
They are supplying front sights? Where the F is important?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I believe so, yes. They're supplying M4s to foreign governments through the US Army. They also supply full spec M4s to police around the world. Plus I would imagine they're still supplying replacement parts for past contracts. I don't know that for a fact, but those contracts usually stipulate supplying replacements for a period of time after it's concluded.
I believe so, yes. They're supplying M4s to foreign governments through the US Army. They also supply full spec M4s to police around the world. Plus I would imagine they're still supplying replacement parts for past contracts. I don't know that for a fact, but those contracts usually stipulate supplying replacements for a period of time after it's concluded.
Police departments require “F” marked front sights? These foreign governments require them?
Are front sights frequently required to be replaced?
I’m not seeing how this is something important. I’m not sure how changes in markings, which we’ve seen for decades, is important. I think some are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. There is no evidence they aren’t following TDP as much as they always have.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Police departments require “F” marked front sights? These foreign governments require them?
Are front sights frequently required to be replaced?
I’m not seeing how this is something important. I’m not sure how changes in markings, which we’ve seen for decades, is important. I think some are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. There is no evidence they aren’t following TDP as much as they always have.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dude I'm trying to explain this to you, but I feel like you just want to argue.
Nobody is saying the marking is important in and of itself, and you're also zeroing in on that one thing when it's just one of many marks you would expect to find on something that was pulled from the same bin as parts going on contract rifles.
But to answer your question, yes, the rifles being delivered to allies through the US Army under DoD contract, I feel pretty safe in assuming that they're going to be required to meet all the same requirements as anything being delivered to the military.
As for the LE contracts, yes, some if not all of those contracts are going to stipulate that they meet the full TDP. That's going to be the main reason why a department would choose them over someone else, because Colt is the only one who can supply them with those full spec rifles. Could they skip some marks that the DoD requires? Yes, but it wouldn't make any sense to do that, unless the customer asked for it, because then they would have to keep the parts separate and pull FSBs from a different bin. That's why the absence of the f mark is no bueno, because it suggests two assembly lines. As in consumer rifles coming out of one bin, and contract rifles from another.
Dude I'm trying to explain this to you, but I feel like you just want to argue.
Nobody is saying the marking is important in and of itself, and you're also zeroing in on that one thing when it's just one of many marks you would expect to find on something that was pulled from the same bin as parts going on contract rifles.
But to answer your question, yes, the rifles being delivered to allies through the US Army under DoD contract, I feel pretty safe in assuming that they're going to be required to meet all the same requirements as anything being delivered to the military.
As for the LE contracts, yes, some if not all of those contracts are going to stipulate that they meet the full TDP. That's going to be the main reason why a department would choose them over someone else, because Colt is the only one who can supply them with those full spec rifles. Could they skip some marks that the DoD requires? Yes, but it wouldn't make any sense to do that, unless the customer asked for it, because then they would have to keep the parts separate and pull FSBs from a different bin.
I’m asking specific questions because I want specific answers. Hopefully learning from somebody that knows. But I’m getting speculation back.
Since we are using “feel” rather than “know” I would feel each and every contract has its own specifications, and stipulating “TDP” which I don’t imagine a LE agency had access to, likely isn’t stipulating markings. In fact, I would feel that TDP specification doesn’t include specific markings, rather actual bench marks that must be met.
I still don’t understand the assumption rather than innocent until proven guilty.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk on
I’m asking specific questions because I want specific answers. Hopefully learning from somebody that knows. But I’m getting speculation back.
Since we are using “feel” rather than “know” I would feel each and every contract has its own specifications, and stipulating “TDP” which I don’t imagine a LE agency had access to, likely isn’t stipulating markings. In fact, I would feel that TDP specification doesn’t include specific markings, rather actual bench marks that must be met.
I still don’t understand the assumption rather than innocent until proven guilty.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk on
You're still not understanding. The US government DOES care about those markings, so Colt marks everything going to them. Ergo, the absence of those marks suggests two different supply chains and two different assembly lines.
I so regret even starting this thread now. I merely thought it might interest some people to know that a foreign government customer was supplied with some of those same subcontracted parts as many as five years ago, so maybe they're not so bad after all.
You're still not understanding. The US government DOES care about those markings, so Colt marks everything going to them. Ergo, the absence of those marks suggests two different supply chains and two different assembly lines.
I so regret even starting this thread now. I merely thought it might interest some people to know that a foreign government customer was supplied with some of those same subcontracted parts as many as five years ago, so maybe they're not so bad after all.
I didn’t think Colt was supplying these rifles to the US government. I’m just confused now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hammer_Man
05-26-21, 18:45
I didn’t think Colt was supplying these rifles to the US government. I’m just confused now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My unit got a new batch of Colt M4a1 rifles last year.
My unit got a new batch of Colt M4a1 rifles last year.
That goes against the narrative Colt lost their contact, huh? Or were they NOS or an old contact being fulfilled?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I merely thought it might interest some people to know that a foreign government customer was supplied with some of those same subcontracted parts as many as five years ago, so maybe they're not so bad after all.
If you are talking about the Mexican gov (I think you mentioned them in your first post) - I wouldn't be so sure they are demanding or getting top quality parts.
Think about the water down there. Americans get warned NOT to drink it but it is 'good enough' for them and the people that live there. All sorts of nasty crap in that water and they are perfectly cool with it...
Now imagine the barrel steel they would be 'ok' with. :no:
As much as I like my mexican food - I would have to take a hard pass on a Mexican rifle.
All the drama about Colt part markings is kind of nonsense because nobody is demanding part markings from any other manufacturer on their AR-15's.
Now that Colt is trying to refine/modernize their production processes to put them in line with their peers it is unacceptable for some reason.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
You being a collector - I would have never expected to read you post garbage like that. Disappointed to say the least...
Suppose I have 2 complete BCG's for sale. One is marked as a Colt part like one would 'expect' Colt to mark their stuff and the other has a marking(s) known to be used by DPMS. Which is worth more to you???
Same could be said about individual bolts. Suppose I have a Colt marked complete bolt, A BCM marked complete bolt, and one with no marks at all. Which one would be worth the least in that example?
If Colt want's to be like PSA and not mark their stuff that is fine with me but I'll be damned if pay more than a PSA price for something that can't be verified as coming from a more reputable manufacturer.
minuteman1636
05-26-21, 20:02
You being a collector - I would have never expected to read you post garbage like that. Disappointed to say the least...
In the words of the famous Sergeant Hulka "Lighten up, Francis. We're all in this together." We can agree to disagree.
I don't look at this issue through the narrowed view of a collector. Detailed collectors are an exceptionally small part of the Colt market and we don't even help Colt keep the lights on in Hartford. My comment was strictly based on the viewpoint from an average consumer in a market with many competing manufacturers.
I agree that if someone is looking for Colt marked parts, they are going to be willing to pay a premium. I have paid too much for some Colt marked parts to finish projects but what is 'normal' for me, is not normal in the vast majority of the firearm consumer audience.
Additionally, I look at this a lot more open-minded than most Colt consumers probably. In a dynamic consumer environment like the firearms market, change is constant and products and processes have to change to keep manufacturers competitive. I would rather have Colt omit some part markings and help them stay in business than demand absolute conformity to old specifications that keep their production costs higher than their competitors."
You being a collector - I would have never expected to read you post garbage like that. Disappointed to say the least...
Suppose I have 2 complete BCG's for sale. One is marked as a Colt part like one would 'expect' Colt to mark their stuff and the other has a marking(s) known to be used by DPMS. Which is worth more to you???
Same could be said about individual bolts. Suppose I have a Colt marked complete bolt, A BCM marked complete bolt, and one with no marks at all. Which one would be worth the least in that example?
If Colt want's to be like PSA and not mark their stuff that is fine with me but I'll be damned if pay more than a PSA price for something that can't be verified as coming from a more reputable manufacturer.
If they tell you their specs you won’t trust it to be true, but they mark it you will?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you are talking about the Mexican gov (I think you mentioned them in your first post) - I wouldn't be so sure they are demanding or getting top quality parts.
Think about the water down there. Americans get warned NOT to drink it but it is 'good enough' for them and the people that live there. All sorts of nasty crap in that water and they are perfectly cool with it...
Now imagine the barrel steel they would be 'ok' with. :no:
As much as I like my mexican food - I would have to take a hard pass on a Mexican rifle.
They buy their guys good guns. Mostly M4s with Aimpoints, but you also see a lot of HK. So I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
If they tell you their specs you won’t trust it to be true, but they mark it you will?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're still not getting it. If they have a single production line and the parts are all marked the same, nobody has any way of knowing which parts are going to end up going where. The bolt you get in your 6920 could have just as easily ended up in a SEAL's Mk18. And the person who made the bolts had to make every one of them with the knowledge that one of them, randomly, might end up going on a mission where the lives of many people could hang in the balance. The life of the soldier using it and his team mates, at the very least.
Another thing you have to realize is that the TDP is the apex of standard AR15s. It's all the collective knowledge and trade secrets that have been learned over the last 50 years. If you're not getting parts made to TDP spec, you're getting something substandard by definition. And Colt is the only manufacturer who can sell full spec parts to consumers.
It has nothing to do with "collecting." It has to do with when you see those marks you know you have the best possible AR15, without exception.
I didn’t think Colt was supplying these rifles to the US government. I’m just confused now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They still have contracts with the DoD. I keep saying that. Remember a year ago when they told their distributors they couldn't order for a while because they had to fulfill contracts?
They buy their guys good guns. Mostly M4s with Aimpoints, but you also see a lot of HK. So I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
Have you ever seen a video or read a review where someone that actually shot an Expanse and had complaints still?
I haven't.
Hammer_Man
05-26-21, 21:46
Have you ever seen a video or read a review where someone that actually shot an Expanse and had complaints still?
I haven't.
I haven’t. The issue is that the expanse rifles were made with subcontracted parts, that didn’t have the typical LE6920 proof marks. They cost a lot less than a LE6920, which was fine at the time. Now Colt is selling a rifle at full meal deal LE6920 pricing, but with a hodgepodge of expanse like non proof marked parts.
Today I did a transfer on a Colt CR6920 lower, that a guy bought from a well known online clone parts dealer. The machine work and finish inside the receiver was bad, like Anderson bad. If I were to buy a CR6920 today, I’d look for one with the cage code marked upper receiver, as I suspect those uppers are leftovers produced before it all went sideways.
I haven’t. The issue is that the expanse rifles were made with subcontracted parts, that didn’t have the typical LE6920 proof marks. They cost a lot less than a LE6920, which was fine at the time. Now Colt is selling a rifle at full meal deal LE6920 pricing, but with a hodgepodge of expanse like non proof marked parts.
Today I did a transfer on a Colt CR6920 lower, that a guy bought from a well known online clone parts dealer. The machine work and finish inside the receiver was bad, like Anderson bad. If I were to buy a CR6920 today, I’d look for one with the cage code marked upper receiver, as I suspect those uppers are leftovers produced before it all went sideways.
What was kind of extra weird about the Mexico marked one is that despite having the subcontracted parts the fit and finish was really good, which isn't something they're generally known for. The action and trigger felt really nice.
I'm not really sure what the CE extractor means. Or the separate MP mark on the barrel for that matter. The carrier was still C marked, and the bolt itself was marked as you would expect. I'm honestly not sure whether the CE extractor could have been delivered to the DoD or not, but the carrier and bolt could have for sure.
Have you ever seen a video or read a review where someone that actually shot an Expanse and had complaints still?
I haven't.
I've also never seen a review where someone put a bolt from one in a 10 inch upper and ran 10k rounds through it.
You're still not getting it. If they have a single production line and the parts are all marked the same, nobody has any way of knowing which parts are going to end up going where. The bolt you get in your 6920 could have just as easily ended up in a SEAL's Mk18. And the person who made the bolts had to make every one of them with the knowledge that one of them, randomly, might end up going on a mission where the lives of many people could hang in the balance. The life of the soldier using it and his team mates, at the very least.
Another thing you have to realize is that the TDP is the apex of standard AR15s. It's all the collective knowledge and trade secrets that have been learned over the last 50 years. If you're not getting parts made to TDP spec, you're getting something substandard by definition. And Colt is the only manufacturer who can sell full spec parts to consumers.
It has nothing to do with "collecting." It has to do with when you see those marks you know you have the best possible AR15, without exception.
Can you prove those parents aren’t TDP?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They still have contracts with the DoD. I keep saying that. Remember a year ago when they told their distributors they couldn't order for a while because they had to fulfill contracts?
Did they not say they were foreign government contracts? That’s what I had read.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did they not say they were foreign government contracts? That’s what I had read.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The contract is with the DoD. The rifles are being supplied to foreign allies by the US government. It's also highly likely they're still supply rifles to our military. Think about how many branches there are, and how many organizations there are in each branch. For example, I believe they're still supplying SOCOM with rifles.
Another thing you have to realize is that the TDP is the apex of standard AR15s. It's all the collective knowledge and trade secrets that have been learned over the last 50 years.
Mmmmmm
If you're not getting parts made to TDP spec, you're getting something substandard by definition.
“Nonstandard” is the word you were seeking.
Even if they have/had one production line for everything, they still have to have a separate set of parts for FCG, lower, and barrel to build civilian and mil guns.
How do you know that the other parts were from the same stock as the mil guns?
Mmmmmm
“Nonstandard” is the word you were seeking.
KAC is non standard. Dimensionally milspec but not to TDP is substandard.
Even if they have/had one production line for everything, they still have to have a separate set of parts for FCG, lower, and barrel to build civilian and mil guns.
How do you know that the other parts were from the same stock as the mil guns?
You have a point with the barrels, but you also have to realize that the person making them had no idea whether they were going to a civilian or to a high level LE user. So the same thing applies. Same for other title 1 parts like the lower and FCG.
I haven’t. The issue is that the expanse rifles were made with subcontracted parts, that didn’t have the typical LE6920 proof marks. They cost a lot less than a LE6920, which was fine at the time. Now Colt is selling a rifle at full meal deal LE6920 pricing, but with a hodgepodge of expanse like non proof marked parts.
Today I did a transfer on a Colt CR6920 lower, that a guy bought from a well known online clone parts dealer. The machine work and finish inside the receiver was bad, like Anderson bad. If I were to buy a CR6920 today, I’d look for one with the cage code marked upper receiver, as I suspect those uppers are leftovers produced before it all went sideways.
Agree. These guys are paying full price for crap that should not be full price.
Funny that you mention the lowers on the CR series being different as well. Both of my Expanse carbines came with LE6920 lowers that (other than a slightly different trigger setup) are no different than my 2013 config LE lower.
You have a point with the barrels, but you also have to realize that the person making them had no idea whether they were going to a civilian or to a high level LE user. So the same thing applies. Same for other title 1 parts like the lower and FCG.
Law Enforcement is getting the same CR6920s as everyone else is now, so I don’t think is a difference.
Law Enforcement is getting the same CR6920s as everyone else is now, so I don’t think is a difference.
If true, that's encouraging. At the same time, though, I wouldn't put it past them to give law enforcement less than TDP. They certainly wouldn't be the first.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.