Colt to Suspend Civilian sells of AR's

[Uni-Vibe]

So interesting.

Ar15.com's consensus is that Colt rifles are overpriced low end stuff with a horse stamped on them, and good riddance.

M4carbine.net holds that Colt rifles are excellent rifles at a reasonable cost, and will be missed.

[NYH1]

Do we know where both companies deviate from the TDP? Euro mentioned that Colt deviates with a semi lower, fcg, and 1.5"s of barrel...anything else? And where and how far does FN deviate?

[TomMcC]

Thanks for the video. Looks like the main deviation for the FN is the barrel. The other deviations seem to be markings which seem to be quite minor.

[26 Inf]

So interesting.

Ar15.com's consensus is that Colt rifles are overpriced low end stuff with a horse stamped on them, and good riddance.

M4carbine.net holds that Colt rifles are excellent rifles at a reasonable cost, and will be missed.

Let me begin by saying although not a Colt fan boy, I'm not a hater. I believe Colt rifles are a good value, but as I'm not wedded to the short handguard, carbine gas system, and FSB intruding in my my FOV through my optic, I generally go elsewhere. In essence, the foregoing are the reasons I'm not one to advocate wholesale telling of new buyers 'get a 6920.'

A couple of things that the avid Colt fans forget is that from the 60's until, I believe, 1983 when their patents expired Colt pretty much was sole source supplier to the DOD.

Serious question, what improvements were made to the M16.AR during that time period that were solely at Colt's initiative, rather than dictated by the DOD? Were there any innovations during this time period to the rifles that Colt sold to the civilian market, other than those necessitated by the .gov to ensure the rifles weren't readily convertible to full auto? I honestly am not sure, but I'm sure someone knows, my thought is not much innovation by Colt that wasn't driven by DOD demands.

Colt's history is one of resting on their laurels.

So for 20 years Colt essentially had a monopoly. Back in the late 80's, early 90's, when some of the most ardent Colt fanboys on this forum were still in grade school, Colt first lost the M16A2 contract to FN.

Colt rebounded by showing some degree of innovation in developing the M4 Carbine. Colt lucked out in 1997, when Crane screwed the pooch and let copies of the TDP out. This resulted in the DOD/Army agreeing to let Colt have sole-sourc3e for the M4 for an extended period of time.

Given this golden opportunity, Colt steadily increased the price of the M4 to the .gov. Cost in 1999 was $521.00; in 2002 it was $912.00. Ultimately the cost rose to $1,029.00 before he Army finally said enough is enough. Colt agreed to drop prices and the cost fell to $812.00 for a bare bones M4.

In 2012, Colt lost the M4 contract to Remington. Remington, who had not been building M15's and M4's for decades, as had Colt, was able to underbid Colt by several hundred dollars a unit. Huh. Colt sued and the bids were let again, this time FN won the bids with a price of $642.00.

(https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...etition-06942/)

As of today, Colt has been pretty much reduced to a tag along participant in .mil contracts.

So, when you read things like: The great irony in the above is that you cannot juxtapose a “boring” 6920 against a flashy Geissele without mentioning that nearly 100% of bad guys killed with carbines in the hands of Americans over the 20 years of nearly continuous combat have had “Colt” stamped on the side.

The reason those rifles were in the sandbox in the first place isn’t because their CEO is a good businessman or even because “Colt” itself is an inherently good manufacturer of weapons. It’s because the rifles meet specifications that have been tweaked and perfected over the last 50 years.

You really need to take it with a grain of salt.

TLDR: Colt had a monopoly on the TDP for several decades, essentially was the sole source provider through the early 80's. The .mil awards contracts for M16's and M4's to the lowest bidder who meets specs. In recent years, that ain't been Colt as far as price goes.

Again, not saying Colt's are junk, just wish some folks would come up for air!

[Arik]

So interesting.

Ar15.com's .

And there's your answer/problem!

[prepare]

Colt's business and gov contracts leave me with images of organized crime.

[Adrenaline_6]

Let me begin by saying although not a Colt fan boy, I'm not a hater. I believe Colt rifles are a good value, but as I'm not wedded to the short handguard, carbine gas system, and FSB intruding in my my FOV through my optic, I generally go elsewhere. In essence, the foregoing are the reasons I'm not one to advocate wholesale telling of new buyers 'get a 6920.'

A couple of things that the avid Colt fans forget is that from the 60's until, I believe, 1983 when their patents expired Colt pretty much was sole source supplier to the DOD.

Thanks 26. The real story is almost always somewhere in the middle and has to do with money. "Fanboying" anything is just that...stupid...and puts self imposed limits on yourself and options that you would have if you would just give things a chance and check it out yourself. We all have done it and one time or another with some type of brand and I will guarantee that almost all of us in hindsight saw that it was more less stupid and when we got out of that "trance" saw a whole new world of options.

This same mindset is what got the US Auto manufacturer to what it is today. Playing catch up and needing bail outs.

[Esq.]

Thanks for the video. Looks like the main deviation for the FN is the barrel. The other deviations seem to be markings which seem to be quite minor.

My take on all that is that there are no SUBSTANTIVE deviations from the TDP in FN "commercial" rifles.....Parts markings don't magically increase lethality.

[Eurodriver]

Let me begin by saying although not a Colt fan boy, I'm not a hater. I believe Colt rifles are a good value, but as I'm not wedded to the short handguard, carbine gas system, and FSB intruding in my my FOV through my optic, I generally go elsewhere. In essence, the foregoing are the reasons I'm not one to advocate wholesale telling of new buyers 'get a 6920.'

A couple of things that the avid Colt fans forget is that from the 60's until, I believe, 1983 when their patents expired Colt pretty much was sole source supplier to the DOD.

Serious question, what improvements were made to the M16.AR during that time period that were solely at Colt's initiative, rather than dictated by the DOD? Were there any innovations during this time period to the rifles that Colt sold to the civilian market, other than those necessitated by the .gov to ensure the rifles weren't readily convertible to full auto? I honestly am not sure, but I'm sure someone knows, my thought is not much innovation by Colt that wasn't driven by DOD demands.

Colt's history is one of resting on their laurels.

So for 20 years Colt essentially had a monopoly. Back in the late 80's, early 90's, when some of the most ardent Colt fanboys on this forum were still in grade school, Colt first lost the M16A2 contract to FN.

Colt rebounded by showing some degree of innovation in developing the M4 Carbine. Colt lucked out in 1997, when Crane screwed the pooch and let copies of the TDP out. This resulted in the DOD/Army agreeing to let Colt have sole-sourc3e for the M4 for an extended period of time.

Given this golden opportunity, Colt steadily increased the price of the M4 to the .gov. Cost in 1999 was $521.00; in 2002 it was $912.00. Ultimately the cost rose to $1,029.00 before he Army finally said enough is enough. Colt agreed to drop prices and the cost fell to $812.00 for a bare bones M4.

In 2012, Colt lost the M4 contract to Remington. Remington, who had not been building M15's and M4's for decades, as had Colt, was able to underbid Colt by several hundred dollars a unit. Huh. Colt sued and the bids were let again, this time FN won the bids with a price of $642.00.

(https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...etition-06942/)

As of today, Colt has been pretty much reduced to a tag along participant in .mil contracts.

So, when you read things like: The great irony in the above is that you cannot juxtapose a “boring” 6920 against a flashy Geissele without mentioning that nearly 100% of bad guys killed with carbines in the hands of Americans over the 20 years of nearly continuous combat have had “Colt” stamped on the side.

The reason those rifles were in the sandbox in the first place isn’t because their CEO is a good businessman or even because “Colt” itself is an inherently good manufacturer of weapons. It’s because the rifles meet specifications that have been tweaked and perfected over the last 50 years.

You really need to take it with a grain of salt.

TLDR: Colt had a monopoly on the TDP for several decades, essentially was the sole source provider through the early 80's. The .mil awards contracts for M16's and M4's to the lowest bidder who meets specs. In recent years, that ain't been Colt as far as price goes.

Again, not saying Colt's are junk, just wish some folks would come up for air!

Please take the above with a grain of salt.

Notice how adherence to the TDP and specifications outlined in the government contract by Colt are not mentioned by this elderly gentleman.

It’s all “blah blah Colt’s business practices are mean”.

He says nothing of any possible poor quality of the actual product.

Because he can’t.

Because it’s a Colt.

[WillBrink]

My Q is, if they're losing their mil contracts and plan to stop selling to the civi market, just who do they plan to sell to? Colt is a classic story of hubris and another classic 'Murican brand going down the chitter due to their own poor decisions over the years. Only major company I can think of who didn't sit on their name and laurels and continues to innovate, respond to the markets, etc S&W and perhaps to a lesser degree Springfield.