Colt LE6940SP???

[MarkG]

The rifle looks to cool for school...

http://www.specializedarmament.com/products/9_LE6940SP-910-2.html

I need one (or two)!

[variablebinary]

How the hell is it worth $1,995.00?

[Detective_D]

How the hell is it worth $1,995.00?

exactly what I was thinking. I dont see anything over 1400 there...at most. Does look nice though.
~D

[variablebinary]

exactly what I was thinking. I dont see anything over 1400 there...at most. Does look nice though.
~D

$1,395.00 for the 6940...so where is the $600 markup coming from?

[ChocLab]

$600 is a lot of money for a shorter barrel.

[Iraqgunz]

If you read closely Ken has done the "high reliability package" upgrade to the gun.

[MarkG]

$1,395.00 for the 6940...so where is the $600 markup coming from?

Is this one of those jobs you can do in your garage with a dremel tool and a bottle of cold blue? How many hours of shop time do you think he has into that rifle?

I have seen a number of his custom builds and nobody does it better.

[ChocLab]

Got it.

http://www.specializedarmament.com/pages/2010_RP.html

[Iraqgunz]

From the website.

The Reliability Package is a proprietary set of modifications developed by Specialized Armament for the Colt AR-15 carbine. Rifles utilizing our Reliability Package have been tested worldwide from 1995 to present. We receive constant inquiries as to exactly what modifications are made that create this unique package. The modifications include the following:
4 to 6 Barrel Modifications
3 Gas system Modifications
2 Bolt group Modifications
Upgraded Buffer Assembly
Upgraded Hammer Assembly
Each modification is small on its own, but when grouped together, they will enhance the reliability and improve the overall function of your world class, combat proven Colt carbine. No specific Technical Data will be released regarding our Colt AR-15 Reliability Package.


Ken has forgotten more than most of us know and I would trust him at his word if he says that the package will make the gun even more reliable. Of course one can always get a Spike's tactical for less.

[Failure2Stop]

Of course one can always get a Spike's tactical for less.

:laugh:

[buddyhoohaw]

I have been interested in picking up one of these uppers since Shot 09and it looks like they are finally coming to market. I was hoping for an 11.5" barrel for the final configuration but looks like they went with a 10.0". Clyde ARmory was taking pre-orders on these uppers for a reasonable price IIRC. I guess it's time to file the F1 on my spare Colt A3 lower.

Cheers

[PlatoCATM]

The barrel is $495 on its own. I wonder why they went 10" instead of 11.5"....

[MarkG]

The barrel is $495 on its own. I wonder why they went 10" instead of 11.5"....

I don't think you can make an 11.5" out of a 6920/6940 barrel because of the relief cut for the grenade launcher.

[buddyhoohaw]

I don't think you can make an 11.5" out of a 6920/6940 barrel because of the relief cut for the grenade launcher.

Could'nt Colt simply use an 11.5" 6933 barrel or is SAW's offering a chopped down 6940? I was under the impression Colt was planning on offering these as complete factory assembled SBRs and also complete uppers only? My guess is they decided to go with 10.0" as a business decision since they already offer an 11.5".

Cheers

[btwice]

Hell for that price I'd just go Noveske....His barrels are the tits

[rob_s]

Could'nt Colt simply use an 11.5" 6933 barrel or is SAW's offering a chopped down 6940? I was under the impression Colt was planning on offering these as complete factory assembled SBRs and also complete uppers only? My guess is they decided to go with 10.0" as a business decision since they already offer an 11.5".

Cheers

There is a lot more to it than that. While the barrel blank (no FSB, no extension) is the same as the standard AR barrel, once it's made up it's all different.

The 10" guns are cut-down 16" barrels. They will also be doing a 10.3 which is a factory Colt complete barrel assembly. IIRC the 10.3 will have the bayo lug.

Pilot is exactly right that the 10" guns have a shitload of work in them, from one of the best in the business.

[RyanB]

After messing around with a lot of different guns, we cut a check and got an Operator from Ken. In the future I will just pay him the big bucks to send me complete rifles and add my own plastic. They really are all of that and a bag of chips.

[variablebinary]

Is this one of those jobs you can do in your garage with a dremel tool and a bottle of cold blue? How many hours of shop time do you think he has into that rifle?

I have seen a number of his custom builds and nobody does it better.

Speak with your dollars then, and post a range report.

I sure as hell wouldn't pay for it

[rob_s]

Speak with your dollars then, and post a range report.

I sure as hell wouldn't pay for it

Perhaps not, but if someone wants a 10" barrel 6940 for whatever reason this is the only way to do it right. Although I suppose any monkey with a hack-saw and $1400 for the base gun could make the same thing.

I hope to get my hands on at least an upper soon but we'll see how that goes.

[Jay Cunningham]

Speak with your dollars then, and post a range report.

I sure as hell wouldn't pay for it

How is your post adding anything of value to the discussion here on M4C?

If you don't like it and won't pay for it, that is fine. However, Ken Elmore is recognized as an SME on Colt AR rifles and this appears to be a very high quality and functional modification to the original gun.

"I sure as hell wouldn't pay for it" doesn't meet our discussion standards, especially coming from a senior member.

[Stickman]

Ken might not be liked by some people, and he may hurt feelings on the internet, but there is no question that he is more than solid when it comes to weapons, especially the AR16/ M16 platforms.

People can certainly buy cheaper and justify the cost in their own minds, but Ken isn't concerned with cost, and neither are other groups of shooters.

[Iraqgunz]

I am not dog-piling. So please don't take it as that. No one is asking you to buy it. He makes the modifications and those that are in the know recognize that.

This is also one of the reasons that Ken doesn't make many appearances on the net. He doesn't feel that he should have to divulge what he does or justify his price tag.

From your posts I don't think that you are "one of those guys", but there are plenty of them who will spend 1200.00 on a good rifle and then 90.00 on a piece of shit optic. Or they buy a 900.00 rifle and then put UTG garbage on it.

Ken knows what he is doing. If I was going into harms way on a daily basis and needed a configuration like that I would get one of his guns anyday of the week and would sleep like a baby at night.


Speak with your dollars then, and post a range report.

I sure as hell wouldn't pay for it

[buddyhoohaw]

There is a lot more to it than that. While the barrel blank (no FSB, no extension) is the same as the standard AR barrel, once it's made up it's all different.

The 10" guns are cut-down 16" barrels. They will also be doing a 10.3 which is a factory Colt complete barrel assembly. IIRC the 10.3 will have the bayo lug.

Pilot is exactly right that the 10" guns have a shitload of work in them, from one of the best in the business.

Thanks for the info Rob. I'll stand by for the factory 10.3" upper.

Cheers

[TOrrock]

That does look pretty sexy.

Any timeline on when the factory 10.3" guns might be online?

[rob_s]

I'm not certain but it may be by the end of this month. FWIW they will have the bayo lug on the 10.3 version. I mentioned to SAW that perhaps a 10.3 without the bayo lug might work with a QD can while the 10.3 with the lug might not, and there is perhaps a slim chance that they'll do a version where they remove the lug.

[kaiservontexas]

Looks nice to me. I do miss the bayo lug, but that is only because I am used to seeing them on the rifle. What does enhanced Colt magazine mean? Sorry if that is a silly question, but I have never seen that mentioned before . . .

[MarkG]

Looks nice to me. I do miss the bayo lug, but that is only because I am used to seeing them on the rifle. What does enhanced Colt magazine mean? Sorry if that is a silly question, but I have never seen that mentioned before . . .

Upgraded chrome-vanadium spring. Can be left loaded for extended periods without the spring degrading.

[RyanB]

Ought to just send PMAGs. It's what Colt does their testing with now.

[Bob Reed]

Hello,

The Red Spring also keeps up with the high cycle rates of full-auto fire and it's the best spring upgrade that money can buy.

Like anything that comes outta Ken's Shop, The Red Spring is amazing and it has an indefinite life.

Red Spring History:
http://www.specializedarmament.com/content/skins/flat/popup_issue_96.html

[No.6]

Next 2k I have laying around (which should be fairly soon) won't be laying around here for long. I have one of Ken's SP guns and it's looking a bit lonely right now.

[Dos Cylindros]

How is your post adding anything of value to the discussion here on M4C?

If you don't like it and won't pay for it, that is fine. However, Ken Elmore is recognized as an SME on Colt AR rifles and this appears to be a very high quality and functional modification to the original gun.

"I sure as hell wouldn't pay for it" doesn't meet our discussion standards, especially coming from a senior member.

Perhaps I am out of line, but it deservs to be said. The OP freequently does this same thing to other people when they post abot stuff that is not Colt and did not come from SAW. So in this case, I think turn about is fair play. Just my two cents.

[kaiservontexas]

Thanks for answering the question!

[Jay Cunningham]

Perhaps I am out of line, but it deservs to be said. The OP freequently does this same thing to other people when they post abot stuff that is not Colt and did not come from SAW. So in this case, I think turn about is fair play. Just my two cents.

This is a technical forum.

[rob_s]

Colt 6945SP (http://www.specializedarmament.com/products/LE6945_SBR-912-2.html)

Looks like I was right about the timeline.

while the original carbine that started this thread is a 10" barrel cut-down from a full-length and re-threaded and re-finished, this version is a factory 10.3" Colt barrel. Note the bayonet lug, for those that lamented it's removal on the 10".

I hope to have a 6940SP or 6945SP upper in my hands perhaps as early as this week for a review and probably a print article.

[justin_247]

While I have no doubt that the reliability package performed by SAW does produce results, I do wonder why they're not being integrated into the manufacture of Colt rifles.

The fact that it adds so much cost to the price of the rifle tells me that it's most likely using some proprietary parts that are currently being manufactured in very small quantities. If these were actually integrated into the assembly line, the cost would probably be significantly reduced.

I can understand why SAW refuses to do this package with non-Colt rifles like those from Tier 3 manufacturers Bushmaster, DPMS, Armalite, Model 1 Sales, etc., but why won't he do the upgrades for rifles from companies such as BCM, DD, and Noveske that adhere very closely to the TDP? Is this an indicator that there may be something inherently problematic in the Colt production and quality control process that Colt is missing?

[rychencop]

very cool...but like just about anything with Colt stamped on it, it's overpriced. i like it though.

[LHS]

Out of curiosity, why the desire for the bayo lug on a 10" bbl? You can't mount a bayonet on it with or without the lug, and the lug is just that much more weight and takes up space that could be used for mounting a can. Is it just nostalgia, or am I missing something useful that the lug can be used for besides mounting a pig-sticker?

[rob_s]

While I have no doubt that the reliability package performed by SAW does produce results, I do wonder why they're not being integrated into the manufacture of Colt rifles.

The fact that it adds so much cost to the price of the rifle tells me that it's most likely using some proprietary parts that are currently being manufactured in very small quantities. If these were actually integrated into the assembly line, the cost would probably be significantly reduced.

I can understand why SAW refuses to do this package with non-Colt rifles like those from Tier 3 manufacturers Bushmaster, DPMS, Armalite, Model 1 Sales, etc., but why won't he do the upgrades for rifles from companies such as BCM, DD, and Noveske that adhere very closely to the TDP? Is this an indicator that there may be something inherently problematic in the Colt production and quality control process that Colt is missing?

Wow, talk about reaching!

[rob_s]

just about anything with Colt stamped on it, it's overpriced.
seriously? after all this time there are still people that think this way?

wow.

[justin_247]

Wow, talk about reaching!

I'm not reaching. I'm just saying that there are obviously things that Colt repeatedly does in its manufacturing process that are apparently not ideal when it comes to reliability, or else this "reliability package" would be irrelevant.

Not only that, it would go to show that other manufacturers who are adhering to the TDP may have the same problems.

Either that, or the "reliability package" is a hock of crap.

[RyanB]

Justin, specific examples?

[justin_247]

Justin, specific examples?

I don't have any. In my mind Colts are good-to-go.

But Ken Elmore is really freakin' smart and knows the platform like none other, so obviously there's something there that Colt isn't doing that he believes should be done.

I am not questioning the reliability of Colts. What I am questioning is why Ken questions them...

[Safetyhit]

...but like just about anything with Colt stamped on it, it's overpriced.


This is simply not true. Sounds as though you have not been observing the competition.

Colt makes an exceptional product for the money.

[RyanB]

There are a lot of things I would do differently too.

[Iraqgunz]

Basically what Ken told me was that he doesn't necessarily believe the hype that surrounds other manufacturers like BCM, DD, etc...

Ken is a Colt purist no doubt. He believes that Colt is the be all end all and in his experience they are the most consistent when it comes to quality and performance.

As for why Colt doesn't incorporate his changes I can only speculate that there "may" be some bad blood still after he left or they don't feel that the extra mods are required or cost effective.

At then end of the day if you are using a Colt to protect your ass and you believe in the process that Ken does then you are just adding some extra insurance to your portfolio.


While I have no doubt that the reliability package performed by SAW does produce results, I do wonder why they're not being integrated into the manufacture of Colt rifles.

The fact that it adds so much cost to the price of the rifle tells me that it's most likely using some proprietary parts that are currently being manufactured in very small quantities. If these were actually integrated into the assembly line, the cost would probably be significantly reduced.

I can understand why SAW refuses to do this package with non-Colt rifles like those from Tier 3 manufacturers Bushmaster, DPMS, Armalite, Model 1 Sales, etc., but why won't he do the upgrades for rifles from companies such as BCM, DD, and Noveske that adhere very closely to the TDP? Is this an indicator that there may be something inherently problematic in the Colt production and quality control process that Colt is missing?

[justin_247]

There are a lot of things I would do differently too.

To specifically increase reliability to the base weapon? Please list what you would do.

Limit it to barrel modifications [to the stock barrel], gas system, BCG, hammer, and buffer.

[RyanB]

I wouldn't stay with a stock barrel. That would be the major change. I'd also use a heavier buffer.

[justin_247]

I wouldn't stay with a stock barrel. That would be the major change. I'd also use a heavier buffer.

But Ken doesn't swap out the barrel... he only modifies it. Try again.

[MarkG]

While I have no doubt that the reliability package performed by SAW does produce results, I do wonder why they're not being integrated into the manufacture of Colt rifles.

The fact that it adds so much cost to the price of the rifle tells me that it's most likely using some proprietary parts that are currently being manufactured in very small quantities. If these were actually integrated into the assembly line, the cost would probably be significantly reduced.

I can understand why SAW refuses to do this package with non-Colt rifles like those from Tier 3 manufacturers Bushmaster, DPMS, Armalite, Model 1 Sales, etc., but why won't he do the upgrades for rifles from companies such as BCM, DD, and Noveske that adhere very closely to the TDP? Is this an indicator that there may be something inherently problematic in the Colt production and quality control process that Colt is missing?

Think of it as sending your Mustang to Saleen. The reliability package isn't addressing a lack of reliability but enhancing an already highly reliable rifle.

[RyanB]

But Ken doesn't swap out the barrel... he only modifies it. Try again.

You asked what I would do. I answered. What Ken would do is different. Since Colt isn't going to do what I want to do, I will do what Ken wants to do.

[justin_247]

You asked what I would do. I answered. What Ken would do is different. Since Colt isn't going to do what I want to do, I will do what Ken wants to do.

Where has Ken written or demonstrated that he is unhappy with the quality of Colt's barrels and would swap them out given the opportunity, as you allege?

[Iraqgunz]

Did I miss something? I don't think he suggested that.


Where has Ken written or demonstrated that he is unhappy with the quality of Colt's barrels and would swap them out given the opportunity, as you allege?

[Jay Cunningham]

This thread has entered the realm of the absurd when Colt's quality control comes into question.

Either coax this thread into something worthwhile or it ends up on the ash heap of history.

[Heavy Metal]

My understanding of what Ken does is refined touch labor. Remember, the M-4/M-16 series is a mass-produced item that is set up to minimize touch labor as much as possible.

He examines, guages, measures, hones and adjusts for optimal performance based on his lifetime of experience.

You are paying for the knowledge and the valuable time of a master.

And to underscore what Jay said about impuning the quality of Colt.

That was some absurd mental gymnastics and made a mockery of Occam's Razor.

[RyanB]

I certainly wasn't impugning Colt quality. I just wish they made CHF middies.

Colt would do a lot of things differently if the TDP were easier to change. But it's not, so they don't.

[rob_s]

I'm not reaching. I'm just saying that there are obviously things that Colt repeatedly does in its manufacturing process that are apparently not ideal when it comes to reliability, or else this "reliability package" would be irrelevant.

Not only that, it would go to show that other manufacturers who are adhering to the TDP may have the same problems.

Either that, or the "reliability package" is a hock of crap.

I don't see how you take 1 + 2 and wind up with the answer being "ostrich".

SAW will tell you that the reason they don't do their package on guns other than Colt because those that are not required to build to a standard rarely do (to paraphrase Pat Rogers too).

If there is any reason that Colt doesn't adopt SAW's work it's between SAW and Colt. I would theorize on the side of what was posted above re: Saleen and the Mustang, but also that Colt is building what their #1 customer asks for. They stick a 1.5" longer barrel in it for the commercial market but otherwise they're selling us the guns they are making for someone else. If their #1 customer doesn't ask for the changes that SAW makes then Colt isn't going to adopt them.

To think that the existence of the SAW reliability package somehow means that there is something "wrong" with the 6920 that isn't "wrong" with other makes is absurd. To think that the fact that Colt doesn't incorporate SAW's upgrades in every production gun somehow makes the reliability package anything less is equally so.

[justin_247]

I don't see how you take 1 + 2 and wind up with the answer being "ostrich".

I'm not questioning the reliability of Colt guns, as you and a few others are alleging. If anybody thinks I am, then they need to reread my posts where I specifically stated that, in my mind, Colts are good-to-go. Period.


SAW will tell you that the reason they don't do their package on guns other than Colt because those that are not required to build to a standard rarely do (to paraphrase Pat Rogers too).

So why does he refuse to do work on DDs and BCMs?


If there is any reason that Colt doesn't adopt SAW's work it's between SAW and Colt. I would theorize on the side of what was posted above re: Saleen and the Mustang, but also that Colt is building what their #1 customer asks for. They stick a 1.5" longer barrel in it for the commercial market but otherwise they're selling us the guns they are making for someone else. If their #1 customer doesn't ask for the changes that SAW makes then Colt isn't going to adopt them.

I think the Saleen analogy is non-nonsensical. Saleen doesn't modify existing parts and simply call it G2G... they swap out all kinds of components and do modifications that end up totaling to nearly 1/3 of the price of the stock car. It's a very bad analogy. If Ken were swapping out the Colt's parts with a Noveske barrel, LMT enhanced bolt, SS buffer spring, VLTOR stock, and a Troy folding rear sight, the Saleen analogy would be valid.


To think that the existence of the SAW reliability package somehow means that there is something "wrong" with the 6920 that isn't "wrong" with other makes is absurd.

At no point in time did I say anything to that effect.


To think that the fact that Colt doesn't incorporate SAW's upgrades in every production gun somehow makes the reliability package anything less is equally so.

Now, to sum it all up, are you all saying that the "reliability package" is completely unnecessary? Because so far that's what I've gotten out of this thread.

In aircraft maintenance (my specialty) we have something called CPI - "continual process improvement." The concept behind it is that there are almost always better ways to do things. Ken obviously has a similar mindset. The first and easiest route to finding processes to improve is to look for trends, ie, things like components that fail before they should or are regularly found to function in a less than optimal manner. From his experience, Ken obviously believes there are 11-13 minor things with Colt carbines that are not performing optimally and that he believes require modification to ensure maximum reliability. The only way he could know this is if he identified some kind of trend here and there and applied a CPI mentality.

In my questions I am doing nothing more than applying basic CPI practices. Fortunately, people who have this mentality usually prevail over others, or else we'd never have upgraded our C-130s or fixed the problems that existed with the early M-16s, among thousands of other things.

[rob_s]

What is the point of your posts and questions? What you appear to be doing is exactly as I said:

Assuming that because there is an improvement available to the stock gun that the stock gun must somehow be lacking.
Assuming that because SAW refuses to work on non-Colt firearms that only the Colt must be lacking.
Assuming that because Colt doesn't incorporate these changes into production that the improvements must be unnecessary or worthless.


You are wrong on all counts.


Are these three points not the points you're making? Because that's how your posts are coming across, and from the other replies I'm not the only one that is reading your posts this way. What you are doing is casting aspersions on both Colt and SAW.

The sad thing is that none of this has much of anything to do with the product(s) being discussed in the thread. If you have questions about SAW, the reliability package, etc. you should start another thread on the topic so we can leave this thread as the product announcement and discussion of the product that it should be.

[Iraqgunz]

This is a warning. Keep this on target. If anyone wants to nit pick Ken Elmore's work or why he does/ doesn't do something contact him or the shop directly.

The next one who starts going off the deep end is going to get nuked.

[justin_247]

Consider my questioning ceased.

I'm going to buy one of Ken Elmore's carbines and see what it is that he does. From there I will determine if there is anything significant enough that improvements would be needed, and thus appease my curiosity.

[SRT]

I just purchased an LE6940 from Glen at Phoenix Distributors. Just in case anyone is interested, they have the 10" version available, the LE6945, for $1500, plus $200 for the Uncle Sam stamp.

See: http://www.phoenixlawenforcement.com/PDFS_10/PhoenixIndv.Officer.Sale.2010.6945.pdf

Stay safe,

SRT

[kac]

I just purchased an LE6940 from Glen at Phoenix Distributors. Just in case anyone is interested, they have the 10" version available, the LE6945, for $1500, plus $200 for the Uncle Sam stamp.


SRT

Is that LE only?

[SRT]

Is that LE only?

Sorry, I don't know. I'm a LEO and have purchased from them for many moons, and they are great people to work with. Call Glen at Phoenix and he'll be able to tell you.

Regards,

SRT

[rob_s]

I just purchased an LE6940 from Glen at Phoenix Distributors. Just in case anyone is interested, they have the 10" version available, the LE6945, for $1500, plus $200 for the Uncle Sam stamp.

See: http://www.phoenixlawenforcement.com/PDFS_10/PhoenixIndv.Officer.Sale.2010.6945.pdf

Stay safe,

SRT
FWIW I think the 6945SP is the 10.3" barrel.

[blackbox]

you gotta love that integrated front folding sight!

[f.2]

My SAW Colts have been 100 percent reliable and I have Tina on speed dial. http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_bucktooth.gif

I use their enhanced red springs in my go to mags. I buy from Ken and Tina for their high quality products and services, top notch customer service, and legendary reliability.