This is why Colt infuriates people...

**Bluto** · 04-16-20, 14:03

Not a rant but I know how many people put so much into roll marks that I thought this was worth showing...

I bought a stripped Colt upper from Geissele during their black Friday sale.

I bought another stripped Colt upper from Primary Arms last week.

Even thought they have the same cage code and square, they are different. Different enough to make me believe they are finished by different companies.

Ignore the FA on both of these. I was in the middle of swapping them out for something else when I noticed all of this.

The bottom one is from Geissele, the top from Primary Arms. Note the different square shape/size and cage code. Geissele's cage code is engraved while PA's is dot matrix printed.
1.jpg

The rail numbers are a different font as well. the camera doesn't pick this up as well, but the Geissele upper (bottom) is thinner and more precise font. its also more of a white while the PA is more yellow.
2.jpg

The M4 markings on the Geissele (left) are a different font and spacing as the PA.
3.jpg

Now to the part that kinda stands out to me; it looks like the PA upper (left) has a thicker layer of dry film lube than the Geissele.
4.jpg

It's also a very slight difference, but the PA is an ever-so-slightly darker shade of black.

Would you doubt either of these to be genuine? If not, what could account for the differences?

**OldState** · 04-16-20, 14:13

Colt has changed their marking and removed some several times in the last few years. What is could be is that the Geissele upper is older stock as I imagine PA sells a lot more Colt Upper receivers than G does. I purchased one from Grant a 18 months ago and it looks like the one from G. The 6920 I purchased in Sept 19 also looks like the G version. Both are definitely roll marked.

Edit...Colt has also been outsourcing a lot of stuff. As long as it’s made to their spec and of proper tolerances I’m ok. It just could be their suppliers markings....if it was indeed outsourced.

**Slater** · 04-16-20, 15:00

I'm guessing different subcontractors.

**scottryan** · 04-16-20, 16:30

Originally Posted by Bluto

Not a rant but I know how many people put so much into roll marks that I thought this was worth showing...

They are both genuine.

I don't know why you are "infuriated"?

A simple gunbroker search for LE6920 rifles would have found several factory rifles with the dot matrix CAGE code marking.

Look at picture 9 in this auction:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/865503491

**elephant** · 04-16-20, 16:47

Colt contracts companies like Martin Marietta, Anchor Harvey and Alcoa for their upper receivers. Do you think Colt puts the cage code numbers on themselves or ask manufactures to put them on?

**markm** · 04-16-20, 17:42

I would think nothing of any of these characteristics. I've been shooting ARs long enough to see many variations that Colt has gone through. Including the Polymer Rifle buffer.

**Bluto** · 04-16-20, 19:38

I guess I've just never really noticed/cared before. Looking at the Colt's in the safe I'm now seeing the differences in markings, etc. that I just didn't pay attention to until now.

Maybe it's just cabin fever... been cooped up too long looking at rifles instead of shooting them...

**85cucvtom** · 04-16-20, 19:49

Is the dry film coating an actual mil-spec thing because I'm pretty sure I have receivers that don't have it.

I have to check my Colt SOCOM barrel but I think it might have a dot matrix cage code.

**Stickman** · 04-16-20, 22:22

Originally Posted by markm

I would think nothing of any of these characteristics. I've been shooting ARs long enough to see many variations that Colt has gone through. Including the Polymer Rifle buffer.

I can remember arfcom clowns lining up to defend those with the cries of, “they are just as good”.