View Full Version : So whats the word on Colts new series of rifles? Thinking about getting a 6920.
OhioInfantry
02-01-11, 21:38
Gentlemen,
From what I understand Colt will be releasing a new line of rifles for the civilian market. I just purchased a 6940 and love it, and am thinking about thinning out the collection and focusing on colt made ARs. Whats the chance of an M16a4 or something else new and fun. If nothing is coming out, then I might just get a 6920 and set it up like my service rifle. Thank you.
The new SP model rifles are going to cause a fracture at Colt. It's going to get really interesting if they are priced lower than the LE models. If they are comparably priced, what was the point of introducing them?
Are we talking about Colt's announcement of, "Colt Tactical Carbine / Rifles for Civilian Tactical Shooters"...?
http://www.defensereview.com/colt-defense-launches-colt-tactical-carbinerifle-line-at-shot-show-2010-tactical-guns-accessorized-for-intensive-tactical-training/
If so, and they are the same rifles as the LE series, how could they be priced anywhere near the LE line? I hope Colt wouldn't skrimp the rifles to compensate for the cost of its hang-ons.
Looks to me like Colt wants to do as Chrysler did with the Jeep Rubicon. Assemble a package that "it thinks" will appeal to a market that really knows no better. For example, the Rubicon is hotter than the Sport. However, with about the same cost, one can customize the Sport with better accessories and set it up for serious off-roading.
I dunno... I thought Colt didn't care about the civilian market anyhow.
outrider627
02-02-11, 00:32
Are we talking about Colt's announcement of, "Colt Tactical Carbine / Rifles for Civilian Tactical Shooters"...?
http://www.defensereview.com/colt-defense-launches-colt-tactical-carbinerifle-line-at-shot-show-2010-tactical-guns-accessorized-for-intensive-tactical-training/
If so, and they are the same rifles as the LE series, how could they be priced anywhere near the LE line? I hope Colt wouldn't skrimp the rifles to compensate for the cost of its hang-ons.
Looks to me like Colt wants to do as Chrysler did with the Jeep Rubicon. Assemble a package that "it thinks" will appeal to a market that really knows no better. For example, the Rubicon is hotter than the Sport. However, with about the same cost, one can customize the Sport with better accessories and set it up for serious off-roading.
I dunno... I thought Colt didn't care about the civilian market anyhow.
No, Colt Tactical is probably dead now. Its been a year without any news about it.
OP is talking about the SP6920 and SP6940, the new non-LE/Gov marked versions of current LE rifles.
According to Davidson's:
SP6920 MSRP $1155.00
LE6920 MSRP $1607.77
SP6940 MSRP $1500.00
LE6940 MSRP $1907.81
This really doesn't make sense to me if the rifles are identical save the markings UNLESS the dealer cost is the same and the markups are vastly different between the lines. I assume this is possible since the MSRP for the SP6920 is pretty close to what I paid for my LE6920.
Since even the Match Target line appears to now include standard sized pins and the same carrier as the LE line, it doesn't make sense that they would makes changes in the parts to lower the cost.
I'd love to hear from someone in the know on this because on the surface it is certainly confusing.
:blink:
Alright, I talked to Colt's MFG.
I was told the SP models are identical to the LE models save the markings.
Any chance you got a street date for them? Haven't seen them listed with dealers yet.
I did not. (I didn't ask about release of anything except the SP901 in fact)
But Davidson's has them on their gallery of guns which in my experience doesn't happen very far in advance of them having something.
EDIT: Lipsey's shows them too, but I can't check stock on thier website.
Just give me a 6720 with a midlength gas system and a low pro gas block. I know I live in fantasy land but one could hope. At the pace colt moves in the civi market, we may actually see this in 2050!
Any info on these? I like the idea of a 6920 that isn't marked LE/GOVT Only.
May I ask why?
Any info on these? I like the idea of a 6920 that isn't marked LE/GOVT Only.
SpookyPistolero
02-11-11, 18:27
May I ask why?
I won't be buying either way (with or without), but I have to say I prefer that as well. It's like a billboard constantly hanging over you saying that the manufacturer you supported doesn't support you [as a 'civilian'].
Also from a purely aesthetic standpoint, manufacturers have become obsessed with engraving, marking and lasering every damn part to the point where ARs are beginning to look like NASCARs with all the logos and text.
The LE markings don't bother me, but if I had to pick between identical Colts with or without LE markings, I would absolutely choose without.
Well then how do you explain the fact that civilians have been buying them for years?
People get wrapped up in some of the silliest stuff.
I won't be buying either way (with or without), but I have to say I prefer that as well. It's like a billboard constantly hanging over you saying that the manufacturer you supported doesn't support you [as a 'civilian'].
SpookyPistolero
02-11-11, 21:38
I'm not saying that people have been getting their Colts through a super-secret black market. But since you inquired as to whey someone might not want one, that's why. They may all be that way, but why go to the trouble of putting that on the side if you really believed in equitable dispersal of arms?
I really don't care that much, there are ample sources for quality ARs besides Colt, it's just a hang-up for me.
Using some of the analogy here I would guess we would have to "boycott" alot of companies. Because after all they make and sell ammo that isn't available to the general public.
Then there are certain knife manufacturers that have certain model knives that aren't available to civilians either. I think I also have some magazines that are marked "Law Enforcement or military use only". Should I sell them?
So where I am going with this and how silly it is?
SpookyPistolero
02-12-11, 11:37
Apples and oranges. Those companies don't put 'LEO/MIL only' on all their stuff. Why bother putting it on the weapon if it's meaningless? If it were just SBRs or auto's, I'd understand. The whole practice is akin to Bill Ruger's viewpoints.
It's a small matter overall and I just take my dollars elsewhere.
I've owned both, and will again. The mark you want is the Pony.
Well then how do you explain the fact that civilians have been buying them for years?
This is true, but I'd rather have it not marked that way. You and I know the law, but when pulled over for a traffic stop the conversation with LEO can get interesting. ("where did you steal this police weapon, boy???")
It's routine in our area that they consider any weapon in sight or even ammo as cause to go further. I've even been queried on why I had a 30 cal ammo can & ammo in the back of a trooper!
As a non-threatening guy over 50, I can usually chuckle and they don't hassle me. I'm not the target demographic.
But then again, this is the same metro area that routinely arrested people who politely informed officers in traffic stops that they were legal concealed carry. Ran them for bogus weapons violations until enough complained and the state weighed in and told the CLEO. (He had actually issued a memo on it, indicating they wanted to discourage legal concealed carry).
So I think Colt will sell more 69xx's if they release them without the LEO markings.
I think the "hate" is misplaced, at best.
Colt Defense sells LE6920's that are marked for LE/mil use only. Though there is not barrier to buying one, not from Colt Defense at least.
Colt Manufacturing, which is the company that is marketing these guns, has no weapons marked LE use only. This is the company that sells the MT line of AR's, that are "post ban" style, that everyone bitched about.
So, now they market "pre-ban" or Post post ban(?) guns, and everyone bitches about it?
They are made by Colt Defense for Colt Manufacturing, two different companies.
Not civilian friendly? They continue to sell 100 plus year old designs as close to the original as possible, to civilians. Please!
You wanna hate or blame someone, blame the politicians and lawyers who've created this BS atmosphere that companies have to operate in.
Bob
Hmmm. It matters not if they are marked- Their websites and policies clearly indicate LEO/MIL only. Try buying some of the 5.56 8126N TAP ammo. It very rarely reaches the civilian market.
The practice is nothing like Bill Rugers viewpoints at all. Do you own any of those magazines marked "LEO/ MIL use only"? If so, you should sell them.
Apples and oranges. Those companies don't put 'LEO/MIL only' on all their stuff. Why bother putting it on the weapon if it's meaningless? If it were just SBRs or auto's, I'd understand. The whole practice is akin to Bill Ruger's viewpoints.
It's a small matter overall and I just take my dollars elsewhere.
Please show me one case of a person who has been arested, charged or otherwise for having a Colt 6920 with such markings. Any LEO who does that probably has bigger issues and is an accident waiting to happen.
This is true, but I'd rather have it not marked that way. You and I know the law, but when pulled over for a traffic stop the conversation with LEO can get interesting. ("where did you steal this police weapon, boy???")
It's routine in our area that they consider any weapon in sight or even ammo as cause to go further. I've even been queried on why I had a 30 cal ammo can & ammo in the back of a trooper!
As a non-threatening guy over 50, I can usually chuckle and they don't hassle me. I'm not the target demographic.
But then again, this is the same metro area that routinely arrested people who politely informed officers in traffic stops that they were legal concealed carry. Ran them for bogus weapons violations until enough complained and the state weighed in and told the CLEO. (He had actually issued a memo on it, indicating they wanted to discourage legal concealed carry).
So I think Colt will sell more 69xx's if they release them without the LEO markings.
This is 1990's Arfcom vintage ****tardery. I can NOT believe we're having this ignoramous conversation in 2011 on M4C.
Someone's ass need an account LOCK. :rolleyes:
People ARE entitled to their opinions, and shouldnt be bitched at for it.
Back to the thread...
The new colt being identical to the old at a lower cost intrigues me.
Please show me one case of a person who has been arested, charged or otherwise for having a Colt 6920 with such markings. Any LEO who does that probably has bigger issues and is an accident waiting to happen.
This is personal preference issue for me, based on how many misunderstandings there are around open carry, legal concealed carry, etc.
I *am* aware of a case where the possession of LEO glock mags contributed to the arrest of an individual. He was released before booking at the station house as they read the code, but apparently three officers all had the same level of misinformation. And he was hauled downtown, etc. Car could have been towed, etc.
We all know the AWB sunset law because it is an issue for us. I'm sure many LEO's do as well, but some do not. This is the same reason I carry the state concealed & vehicular carry regs with me at times.
There is also the civil suit issue. I've not heard of a case where it happened with a colt LEO carbine, but you don't want them to hand them things to prejudice a jury with if you ever do have to use your weapon in defense. This is the same reason I don't carry my pet reloads in harms way, I use widely available loadings.
I do own some LEO marked mags back from when it was all you could get. But at this point, I'll go out of my way to buy items without the markings if I can. If I just had to have a colt, I'd have considered it even with markings. But being able to get one without the marking makes it a non-issue. I think Colt will sell more if they do introduce the 6xxx which is identical but without the markings.
I thought it had more to do with the Fact there's an AWB in Connecticut and Connecticut bailed out Colt when they were going bankrupt and part of doing a deal with the devil was the said markings, and not selling AR's to civilians.
(Which for years, they sold them IIRC to LE Distributors who then sold them to civilians, which cleared Colt of any issue but still ended up with their guns in civilian hands, not that's an issue, obviously I don't hate civilians with AR's. Being one.)
DaBears_85
02-12-11, 23:24
I must admit, I'm still confused as to the point of all this. I was under the impression that mfg's like Colt and EOTech, to name a few, put the Military/LEO markings on their products to bolster sales to the civilian market due to their 'cool' factor, for lack of a better term.
I must admit, I'm still confused as to the point of all this. I was under the impression that mfg's like Colt and EOTech, to name a few, put the Military/LEO markings on their products to bolster sales to the civilian market due to their 'cool' factor, for lack of a better term.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter, they obviously sell to civilians, but at some point they wanted those on production models for various reasons.
Honestly, if the EOTechs were Military Issue items, let's be honest, we've got a somewhat liberal government and the military has liberal views on guns and weapons, honestly I mean, they trust soldiers to fight wars, but not with a Concealed Weapon on Military Installations. As part of a contract, they probably wanted "For Military use only" on them.
Probably a stipulation.
I think Colt's was the bail out, and for EOTech Military may have required it, or maybe some major L.E. division required it, who knows.
FChen17213
02-13-11, 00:39
I don't think most people care what the markings are as long as the gun is the same. If given a choice between a 6920 with or without the LEO/Govt markings, I would flip a coin...couldn't care less. As to guys being illegally hauled in and arrested, that has got to be few and far between. Interesting point would be why one product would cost less than the other. Heck, if the civie version costs less, I think Law Enforcement agencies will start buying the civilian version...after all there are no laws to prohibit agencies from buying weapons that are transferrable to civilians.
There's a few available out there now, first ones I've seen online anyway, $1139-$1159. Makes me happy. I'll get one and an SP6940 too.
Found this on GB:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=220476663
.
The ONLY reason I chose a non-LE/Mil Only marked LMT lower for my build was the cost difference. It cost me less money. Other than that there was no other factor in my decision. The choice could have been between Mickey Mouse markings and Donald Duck markings and if one was less expensive than the other I would have chosen the least expensive lower with whatever markings.
Doc Safari
03-25-11, 09:22
According to Davidson's:
SP6920 MSRP $1155.00
LE6920 MSRP $1607.77
SP6940 MSRP $1500.00
LE6940 MSRP $1907.81
This really doesn't make sense to me if the rifles are identical save the markings UNLESS the dealer cost is the same and the markups are vastly different between the lines. I assume this is possible since the MSRP for the SP6920 is pretty close to what I paid for my LE6920.
Since even the Match Target line appears to now include standard sized pins and the same carrier as the LE line, it doesn't make sense that they would makes changes in the parts to lower the cost.
I'd love to hear from someone in the know on this because on the surface it is certainly confusing.
:blink:
I agree. A $400 or $500 price difference doesn't smell right if all we are talking about is a difference in markings.
I sure hope Colt isn't installing substandard parts in the so-called civilian version.
I allow for the possibility that they charge more for the gun to really say 'AR15' on it rather than 'Match Target' just for example, but this worries me enough to really want an answer before buying the civilian version of anything they make.
I sure hope Colt isn't installing substandard parts in the so-called civilian version.
If it's like other manufacturors... they're the same parts, but the LE guns are subject to stricter QC.
To add fuel to the fire.. my EOTech XPS has "for mil/LE use only" market on the side too. I guess people put off by that label should avoid EOTech equipment also.
I'd have to agree with Iraq on this one. If you purchased it legally and can produce a receipt (or otherwise proof) to prove it legally belongs to you or is registered in your name. Then thats enough for me. Worrying if some minute chance woulda/coulda/shoulda happen with a LEO that has entirely too much times on his hands just isnt worth the effort.
For what its worth, I like the MIL/LE markings on the 6920 and 6940. It makes the rifle seem more authentic in my opinion, especially coming from Colt and this history with the US military. Not to mention that label was authentic at one time because thats exactly who that rifle was intended for at one time its product lifeline. Laws change though, and LEO's should be well aware of the laws they are enforcing. That is just my personal preference and I realize it has absolutely no bearance on the performance or reliability of something as simple as the marking on a lower.
All that said, its still the exact same rifle.. just with different markings. I've seen 6920's as cheap as $1099. And SP6920's as cheap as $1,049. If the SP markings means saving $50 bucks.. then I'm sure most people will choose that one. And I cannot fault them.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-25-11, 13:07
Sounds like a way to get more Colts into CA. Im sure that wasnt the sole motivation, but CA has a HUGE market for guns.
Upclose...SP
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/Alpha-Romeo3/Hunting%20CAR%2010X7/a47d66a8-1.jpg
I've noticed that the new SP is made by "COLTS MFG."
and the 6920 with LEO/GOV warning is made bt "COLT DEFENSE"
What's the differance?:confused:
6920
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn40/dunklarsen/IMG_0957.jpg
*thanks to FailureDrill-P099 and Alpha-Romeo3 on TOS for their pics.
.
davidjinks
03-25-11, 16:02
This is 1990's Arfcom vintage ****tardery. I can NOT believe we're having this ignoramous conversation in 2011 on M4C.
Someone's ass need an account LOCK. :rolleyes:
****tardery…
I have saved this as my new word of the month. Thank you sir!
I've never heard or experienced anyone ever being arrested/hassled/hemmed up/detained for owning anything marked LEO/MIL.
Hell, I own lots of stuff that has LEO/MIL only markings on them and I've never had a single issue. I shoot with members of the PD for my area as well.
Some people have way too much time on their hands, and too much crack.
polymorpheous
03-25-11, 16:08
This is 1990's Arfcom vintage ****tardery. I can NOT believe we're having this ignoramous conversation in 2011 on M4C.
I was thinking the same thing.
Edit:
This thread started off as a good opportunity to get information on what looks to be a fine product.
I've noticed that the new SP is made by "COLTS MFG."
and the 6920 with LEO/GOV warning is made bt "COLT DEFENSE"
What's the differance?:confused:
Two seperate companies. This has been discussed before, in this thread.
Bob
Two seperate companies. This has been discussed before, in this thread.
Bob
I saw that but why do they need two different companies to sell the same gun?
.
Evil Colt 6920
03-25-11, 18:32
MIL/LEO markings are cool end of story:suicide:
I saw that but why do they need two different companies to sell the same gun?
.
Many companies have multiple divisions selling basically the same stuff to different end users.
RogerinTPA
03-25-11, 19:24
This is 1990's Arfcom vintage ****tardery. I can NOT believe we're having this ignoramous conversation in 2011 on M4C.
Someone's ass need an account LOCK. :rolleyes:
Agreed.
Anyone who believes that a roll mark containing "For Military or Law Enforcement only" (which I have two of) will land you in jail, is willfully ignorant of the facts. The subject has been covered ad nauseum. Much like the piston vs DI threads, we need to include it in a AR witchcraft and sorcery thread, where all the myths can be coalesced and killed in place.
I think this thread has outlived it's usefulness.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.