Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: Colt 6940P--Piston Parts Pics

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ND
    Posts
    260
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    You could get them for $1,700 back before the craze. I believe I saw some on GB for below $2,000 but most are $2,500.
    Here is one Grant is selling on Gunbroker. And before anyone goes all "Grr price gouger, evil!", Grant doesn't have real time inventory on the site so if he put it up on his site he would get overwhelmed with responses and have to cancel all the excess orders. He only had the one come in and didn't have any backorders for them so he threw it up on Gunbroker. If you want to get on the backorder list for an item send Grant an email.
    "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." - H. L. Mencken

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Posts
    83
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)
    I currently have one of these neat rifles. Well, its not here, its at Colt for repair.

    The piston rod broke during a firing string creating a single shot wonder. the rod snapped about 1 inch in from the receiver. As only the bottom rail is removable I had to send it back to Colt for repair. Colt customer service has been so so thus far. The rifle was received at Colt on 5 Oct 12 and Lewis, the Cust Service rep, has always been polite and accomidating in the status of the repair.

    I found the accuracy of the rifle to be no different than that of my personal 6920, 6721 or my issue M4

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by KiraX105 View Post
    I currently have one of these neat rifles. Well, its not here, its at Colt for repair.

    The piston rod broke during a firing string creating a single shot wonder. the rod snapped about 1 inch in from the receiver. As only the bottom rail is removable I had to send it back to Colt for repair. Colt customer service has been so so thus far. The rifle was received at Colt on 5 Oct 12 and Lewis, the Cust Service rep, has always been polite and accomidating in the status of the repair.

    I found the accuracy of the rifle to be no different than that of my personal 6920, 6721 or my issue M4
    What revision was it? The newly modded ones or the older ones.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,421
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    It hasn't been an issue through history.
    Quite the opposite, actually. One of the things designers do to GI proof weapons is to eliminate as as many small, easily lost parts as possible. When a weapon does have such small parts, they are usually not part of the field stripping process. That's one reason the FCG of the AR isn't supposed to be removed by the GI in the field.

    Do a search on most of the discussions of op-rod piston systems on this forum. One criticism that is continuously is that there are more parts critical to function that can get buggered or lost. One area Colt missed the mark is that the piston & op-rod are made up of multiple pieces. The piston & op-rod of the FAL is one piece plus a spring and no gas rings.

    I cannot tell for certain from the pictures but it looks like Colt may have made the op-rod adjustable for length. Why?

    Some have mentioned they'd like this system to have a manually adjustable gas regulator. That is a step backwards. Self regulating gas systems have proven to reliably handle a wide variety of ammo under a variety of conditions and do so with fewer moving parts. There are those on this site that state the A2 adjustable sights are undesirable because they can get played with and throw the zero off. Other than the ability to switch from suppressed to unsuppressed use, why is an adjustment that can stop the rifle from functioning desirable?

    Finally, what makes the Colt op-rod system better than other AR op-rod systems? What does it bring to the AR family of weapons that the original carrier piston system does not? What is the pay off for having an AR with proprietary parts that adds to the complexity of the gas system?
    Last edited by MistWolf; 02-25-13 at 11:38.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    Quite the opposite, actually. One of the things designers do to GI proof weapons is to eliminate as as many small, easily lost parts as possible. When a weapon does have such small parts, they are usually not part of the field stripping process. That's one reason the FCG of the AR isn't supposed to be removed by the GI in the field.

    Do a search on most of the discussions of op-rod piston systems on this forum. One criticism that is continuously is that there are more parts critical to function that can get buggered or lost. One area Colt missed the mark is that the piston & op-rod are made up of multiple pieces. The piston & op-rod of the FAL is one piece plus a spring and no gas rings.

    I cannot tell for certain from the pictures but it looks like Colt may have made the op-rod adjustable for length. Why?

    Some have mentioned they'd like this system to have a manually adjustable gas regulator. That is a step backwards. Self regulating gas systems have proven to reliably handle a wide variety of ammo under a variety of conditions and do so with fewer moving parts. There are those on this site that state the A2 adjustable sights are undesirable because they can get played with and throw the zero off. Other than the ability to switch from suppressed to unsuppressed use, why is an adjustment that can stop the rifle from functioning desirable?

    Finally, what makes the Colt op-rod system better than other AR op-rod systems? What does it bring to the AR family of weapons that the original carrier piston system does not? What is the pay off for having an AR with proprietary parts that adds to the complexity of the gas system?
    The original LE1020 used a one piece fal type op rod, they moved to this for IC, I'm sure there is a reason.

    Soldiers also seem apt enough to maintain the many small parts of the m4, including the FPRP, the Extractor pin, the extractor, the cam pin, I don't see what difference a few parts 4 times+ the size of the cotter pin would make.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    Quite the opposite, actually. One of the things designers do to GI proof weapons is to eliminate as as many small, easily lost parts as possible. When a weapon does have such small parts, they are usually not part of the field stripping process. That's one reason the FCG of the AR isn't supposed to be removed by the GI in the field.

    Do a search on most of the discussions of op-rod piston systems on this forum. One criticism that is continuously is that there are more parts critical to function that can get buggered or lost. One area Colt missed the mark is that the piston & op-rod are made up of multiple pieces. The piston & op-rod of the FAL is one piece plus a spring and no gas rings.

    I cannot tell for certain from the pictures but it looks like Colt may have made the op-rod adjustable for length. Why?

    Some have mentioned they'd like this system to have a manually adjustable gas regulator. That is a step backwards. Self regulating gas systems have proven to reliably handle a wide variety of ammo under a variety of conditions and do so with fewer moving parts. There are those on this site that state the A2 adjustable sights are undesirable because they can get played with and throw the zero off. Other than the ability to switch from suppressed to unsuppressed use, why is an adjustment that can stop the rifle from functioning desirable?

    Finally, what makes the Colt op-rod system better than other AR op-rod systems? What does it bring to the AR family of weapons that the original carrier piston system does not? What is the pay off for having an AR with proprietary parts that adds to the complexity of the gas system?
    1. Your point about GI proofing is not really valid, as you probably have not been around many machineguns, and you are also wrong about it being an issue in my opinion.

    Take the FN-MAG for example, where you have loads of small parts that must be removed in order to clean it properly; gas system/gas regulator, top cover, bolt etc. Loads of parts than can possibly be lost during disassembly. Same with the MG3, the bolt carrier group consists of 12 parts alone(15 if you dissassemble the bolt/extractor).

    When you compare some of these parts to the FCG of an AR, they are much smaller. And what about the cotter pin on the BCG?

    While there are some assembly difficulties during the early part of training, they go away with repetition.

    2. I agree that their choice of a 3 part system is odd, but the reason might be ease of parts replacement, if wear is focused on one part. I do not agree with your statement about a piston system equalling more parts that are prone to failure or being lost. The wear on the piston and op-rod on the HK416 is negligible. The wear prone parts of the operating system are the gas rings, same as on the M4 bolt.

    3. Adjustable gas regulators are a very nice feature to have, in my opinion. If the system is easy to use, intuituve as well as secure, then I have no issue with it. It can not compromise reliability.

    4. What is the point in trying to be innovative, trying new designs, trying to improve their products? Clearly we should never change anything, because what we have works so well and has for so long. Right?

    I see this attitude among many senior O's who often do not see the point in changing out some of the gear we have, they often oppose such efforts strongly. One example was the acquisition of electronic, comms compatible hearing protection (specifically Peltor ComTac XPs). One of the O's involved in the project, a Colonel, stated that he really didn't see the point; he had used ear plugs and normal muffs during his career without issue. It should still do the job. Fortunatly reason was victorious, and we are starting to be issued these service-wide. In addition, every soldier is issued active hearing protection (Peltor SWAT Tac).

    I agree that change for the sake of change is pointless, but we should not criticize or be negative towards new designs or changes because we want to hold on to what we like.
    Last edited by Arctic1; 02-25-13 at 13:13.
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    3,204
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Here are some additional pictures. If there's anything else that anyone would like to see, please let me know. I'll do my best to get the photograph(s) for you.

    Here's the left side of the receiver showing the steel cam pin insert. It has been reported that this small steel plate was added to eliminate the wear that's usually present in piston guns from "cam pin drag." Colt is the only manufacturer I'm aware of that is adding a special plate to deal with this. Other makers--SIG for example--is removing the material that would normally be rubbed by the cam pin. It will be interesting to see which approach ultimately proves to be the better one.


    The steel plate as seen from the inside.




    The piston rod as it sits inside the upper.


    The newer one piece bolt carrier. There is no chrome lining to the interior of the carrier.


    The tail end of the bolt carrier has the raised ribs or skis as used by most makers nowadays.


    Standard GI bolt.


    Here's the extractor. Black insert and gold spring.


    Chromed chamber and bore.
    Last edited by Tokarev; 02-25-13 at 15:14.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Have you taken it out for a test run yet? It looks nice.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,421
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic1 View Post
    1. Your point about GI proofing is not really valid, as you probably have not been around many machineguns, and you are also wrong about it being an issue in my opinion.
    Of course, the more complex the machine, the more complex the parts. A machinegun has more small parts than an infantry rifle and an aircraft has more small parts than a machinegun. I agree training is an excellent answer. My point is, other op-rod conversions get raked over the coals for adding complexity to the AR. This one has even more parts than other AR op-rod systems that I've seen, yet that's ok.

    2. ...I do not agree with your statement about a piston system equaling more parts that are prone to failure or being lost.
    I make no claims about wear or early failure on this one. I can tell you from long experience, small parts constantly get mis-placed & lost and the more parts there are, the more likely they get lost. That's why as a technician, it's very important that I keep the work area and the parts neat, organized and tagged. A soldier in the field does not always have that luxury

    3. Adjustable gas regulators are a very nice feature to have, in my opinion. If the system is easy to use, intuituve as well as secure, then I have no issue with it. It can not compromise reliability.
    I cannot tell you how many times I've read a post about a FAL that won't function only to find out it's due to the gas regulator being out of adjustment, most times because someone had finger fiddled it. I find it interesting that it's not ok to have sights a soldier will fiddle with throw and change zero but it's ok to have a regulator to fiddle with that can turn the rifle off

    4. What is the point in trying to be innovative, trying new designs, trying to improve their products? Clearly we should never change anything, because what we have works so well and has for so long. Right?
    I like changes that make my gadgets operate better, easier to maintain or improve safety. This innovation doesn't do any of those. As a technician, I see potential problem areas on this new piston/op-rod that I would be keeping a close eye on until they've proven themselves

    we should not criticize or be negative towards new designs or changes because we want to hold on to what we like.
    I'm not critical because I simply want to hold on to what I like. I'm critical because historically op-rod systems in ARs bring no practical improvement over the original. What does this do that the traditional AR gas system does not? What advantage does making the op-rod in several pieces have over a single piece? Nearly every good improvement makes a machine simpler, especially when talking about mature technology. The Colt op-rod system is NOT simpler
    Last edited by MistWolf; 02-25-13 at 15:32.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Orion Arm of the Milky Way
    Posts
    426
    Feedback Score
    0
    Good looking rifle!

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •