Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54

Thread: Something interesting re: the CR6920 (might not be so bad after all)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,325
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Something interesting re: the CR6920 (might not be so bad after all)

    I ran across an interesting flavor of LE6920. They were originally destined for the Mexican police, but Colt made too many or the contract fell through or whatever, and they were sold off as surplus basically to the US consumer market. So they're kind of interesting in the sense that they're legit contract rifles that ended up on the commercial market. Now that contract was with Mexico, and maybe they have lower standards than the US government-I don't know-but one would assume being a government entity that they would get the full TDP treatment.

    The rifles were made sometime around 2014ish maybe, and they share some of the same odd characteristics as the newer LE6920s and CR6920s. The barrels are marked with the separated MP, and the extractors are marked CE. The handguards do not have the glue, and the stocks, while having cage codes, do have the little circular mark where a logo can be placed in the mold.

    So maybe there's hope that the subcontracted parts are being held to TDP, and that the new CR models are still full spec like the previous LE line. I wish Colt would be more transparent and consistent about guaranteeing full TDP spec on all of their ARs, like they were briefly in the late 2000s, but I guess you just have to accept the things you cannot change when it comes to them.

    There is one bugaboo in this theory, though. The rifle I examined had an F marked front sight and C marked carrier. It is disconcerting that the CR models don't have F marked front sights, because that kind of implies that those at a bare minimum aren't being held to TDP standards. I think it's super strange they would do that regardless, because I didn't even know you could get non F marked front sights anymore. I thought they were essentially the stuff of retro builders these days.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    93
    Feedback Score
    0
    'F' marked front sight was only necessary when two different heights of front sight bases were being manufactured. That is no longer the case so the 'F' mark isn't necessary. 'F' marked fsb's that make it onto CR6920's are leftover .mil fsb's. Not marking the fsb's were not required by contract eliminates a production step/costs.

    The 'C' mark on the carrier is a .mil requirement. Again, not necessary on the CR6920. Not putting a 'C' on the carrier eliminates a production step/cost.

    Colt is streamlining their production process to eliminate as many redundant or unnecessary steps as possible which is part of the reason they have now stopped milling off lever stops. I understand that people don't like it, but I understand them doing it and don't blame them in the highly competitive industry where they are additionally burdened by union costs.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
    It is the task of our generation, yours and mine. But we build and defend not for our generation alone. We defend the foundations laid down by our fathers. We build a life for generations yet unborn.
    We defend and we build a way of life, not for America alone, but for all mankind. Ours is a high duty, a noble task.---Franklin Delano Roosevelt May 26th, 1940.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,325
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by minuteman1636 View Post
    'F' marked front sight was only necessary when two different heights of front sight bases were being manufactured. That is no longer the case so the 'F' mark isn't necessary. 'F' marked fsb's that make it onto CR6920's are leftover .mil fsb's. Not marking the fsb's were not required by contract eliminates a production step/costs.

    The 'C' mark on the carrier is a .mil requirement. Again, not necessary on the CR6920. Not putting a 'C' on the carrier eliminates a production step/cost.

    Colt is streamlining their production process to eliminate as many redundant or unnecessary steps as possible which is part of the reason they have now stopped milling off lever stops. I understand that people don't like it, but I understand them doing it and don't blame them in the highly competitive industry where they are additionally burdened by union costs.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
    Skipping those marks isn't saving them any money, so I think that's a non starter right there, as far as arguments go.

    Still, if the marks were the only thing they skipped, obviously nobody really cares. But the problem is that it suggests they're no longer running the single production line, which means we could be getting just about anything. The CR could be anything ranging from a full spec 6920 to a glorified Expanse. People no longer know what they're getting for their money.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    93
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post
    Skipping those marks isn't saving them any money, so I think that's a non starter right there, as far as arguments go.

    Still, if the marks were the only thing they skipped, obviously nobody really cares. But the problem is that it suggests they're no longer running the single production line, which means we could be getting just about anything. The CR could be anything ranging from a full spec 6920 to a glorified Expanse. People no longer know what they're getting for their money.
    Every mark on a part requires someone to change a tool, perform a step by hand, etc. That absolutely translates to manhours and additional production dollars.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
    It is the task of our generation, yours and mine. But we build and defend not for our generation alone. We defend the foundations laid down by our fathers. We build a life for generations yet unborn.
    We defend and we build a way of life, not for America alone, but for all mankind. Ours is a high duty, a noble task.---Franklin Delano Roosevelt May 26th, 1940.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,325
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by minuteman1636 View Post
    Every mark on a part requires someone to change a tool, perform a step by hand, etc. That absolutely translates to manhours and additional production dollars.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
    Marking things is pretty seamless, and doesn't generally add much if anything to the cost of a product, especially if cosmetics aren't an issue, as they aren't in this case. The cost of operating two assembly lines would FAR outweigh any savings they might achieve by skipping the marks, IF that's the only thing they were skipping.

    That's just the sight, though, so hopefully the barrels and bolts are still up to snuff.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    821
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post
    Marking things is pretty seamless, and doesn't generally add much if anything to the cost of a product, especially if cosmetics aren't an issue, as they aren't in this case. The cost of operating two assembly lines would FAR outweigh any savings they might achieve by skipping the marks, IF that's the only thing they were skipping.

    That's just the sight, though, so hopefully the barrels and bolts are still up to snuff.
    What makes you think that the FSBs themselves aren't "up to snuff"? They are still "F" height despite not having the mark, so I'm not really seeing the issue???

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,325
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 556Cliff View Post
    What makes you think that the FSBs themselves aren't "up to snuff"? They are still "F" height despite not having the mark, so I'm not really seeing the issue???
    Well the implication is that there can no longer be a single assembly line, because those couldn't be delivered.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    187
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post
    Well the implication is that there can no longer be a single assembly line, because those couldn't be delivered.
    What do you mean they couldnít be delivered? They are being delivered. Maybe Iím confused. What about not having a marking makes them undeliverable?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,325
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by mRad View Post
    What do you mean they couldn’t be delivered? They are being delivered. Maybe I’m confused. What about not having a marking makes them undeliverable?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    To my knowledge, they still couldn't be delivered to the government with those FSBs. If that's changed, somebody please correct me.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,055
    Feedback Score
    35 (100%)
    There are five CR6920 rifles on the shelf where I work. Two of them have cage code marked upper receivers, and came packed in the old school blue plastic bag. The other three do not have cage code marked upper receivers, and came packed in a clear plastic bag. Some of them have Schmid Tool markings on the selectors and trigger groups, some donít.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •