First Impressions: Colt AR6951 9mm Carbine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halfmoonclip

Presume used at that price, but that's a steal, assuming decent condition.
I had one stutter with mine with a hollow point, but generally just run ball. With 10.5" muzzle velocity, it should do fine if ever called on for defense.
Moon

---

The gun shop I got it from listed it as a new gun. Seems almost too good to be true. I can’t wait till tomorrow so I can pick it up and verify that it is what they say it is.
But yes , that would still be a decent price for a used gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eazyeach

I also got one from Armslist. Pick it up at my FFL tomorrow. $781 shipped plus $25 transfer.

---

I paid list, $1099, for the new in box one. 2 days later Colt says they're not shipping any more rifles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uni-Vibe

I paid list, $1099, for the new in box one. 2 days later Colt says they're not shipping any more rifles.

---

That is the story. Can't say what might be in Colt managements' mind, unless they are succumbing to political pressure in increasingly gun-unfriendly Connecticut.
Their 9mm carbines are great; congrats to you guys who scored one.
Moon
Moon

I've got an AR6450 and an AR6951 and both are a lot of fun to shoot. Compare the C-Products and Metalform mags... the Metalform is really heavy duty and mine have performed flawlessly.

Here's a write up on the Colt Submachine Gun, 9mm NATO, if anybody's interested. This is the predecessor of the 6951https://www.smallarmsreview.com/disp...darticles=3431


Chuck Taylor's assessment (he carried one):


http://www.chucktayloramericansmalla.../coltm635.html


.223Pound is right. I've examined the ASC mags and they look OK, but I went ahead and paid a few bucks more for Metalform 32s. They are the same as Colt OEM. I didn't get any 20s as I didn't see the need.

Finally picked mine up. I got a few metal form mags and I got a loader on the way. Looking forward to putting some rounds down range this weekend.

Well it looks like a new gun. I was skeptical at that price, but it was nice and greasy and the mag/manual/lock bag was unopened. I rarely luck into a deal like that.

It could be a counterfeit Colt though. There are no chatter marks or rough spots and the trigger isn’t total shit.

I can’t wait till my mag loader gets here. The mags are hard As hell to load.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eazyeach

Well it looks like a new gun. I was skeptical at that price, but it was nice and greasy and the mag/manual/lock bag was unopened. I rarely luck into a deal like that.

It could be a counterfeit Colt though. There are no chatter marks or rough spots and the trigger isn’t total shit.

I can’t wait till my mag loader gets here. The mags are hard As hell to load.

---

You made out like a bandit. I didn't see that deal when I was looking. Let us know what you think when you fire it.

The heavy subsonics that are so great in pistols seem totally wrong in blow back sub guns where the lighter hotter loads cycle best.

The possible exception being a <5" barrel dedicated suppressed setup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uni-Vibe

I have to modify something in my review above.

Latest range trip, I shot some more Federal 147 grain FMJ flat point. They worked 100% before, but this time, there was one ejection failure. These 147s are noticeably softer-shooting in my pistol, and also in the 6951. Apparently they are not quite powerful enough to reliably operate the blowback action. I switched back to Q4318 NATO. Recoil was snappier and no further problems were experienced.

---

Fired mine this week. At 25 yards, Q4318 NATO was accurate. Almost as accurate was Winchester 115 grain. 147 grain looked like buckshot patterns.