Possible full milspec Colts up for grabs on Armsunlimited

[okie]

I don't think the CR prefix makes a difference. Just like the old SP models, different prefix, same gun as the LE.

I don't know if there was overlap between the SP and LE, like there was with the LE and CR, but prior to about 2010 the commercial colts were all subcontracted. If I remember right, they were actually made in a completely different factory that was even a separate company back then. They had the semi carriers, all the FCG parts were different. You almost couldn't even call them AR15s. Actually, even after they stopped doing the commercial non interchangeable parts thing, they were still that way. I bought a surplus lot of Colt parts when their commercial company was dissolved, and the pins were all standard spec by that time, but everything was subcontract. All nice stuff, don't get me wrong. The receivers said Colt, but had been made by a machine shop in Texas.

As for the CR prefix, it does seem like the vast, vast majority of them, especially recently, are mostly subcontracted parts. Vs. the LE, where I would say the majority of them have milspec parts. So while you have both examples of subcontracted and in house parts for both the CR and LE models, the norm for the CR seems to be subcontracted, whereas the norm for the LE was in house.

Just throwing that out there for someone who's shopping around. LE not automatically good, CR not automatically bad, but the likelihood is in that direction.

[w3453l]

There seems to be a lot of inconsistency, as others have reported. I have a CR prefix rifle or two, and the boxes were advertised as LExxxx models, and purchased theough a LE distributor. The guts of them match the standards of quality and markings that I would expect on a .mil rifle with the exception of sear blocks and semi triggers.

I’ve read here about CRs not living up, but in my small sample they seem fine. My CR (or two) were bought post-COVID.

Edit: also have a buddy that bought a CR6920 last year. It works, and is assembled and marked correctly.

I also bought two OEM2 6920's through an LE distributor 2 years ago. The box was also advertised as LExxxx and all of the internals had the same level of quality and markings as my friends LE6920 that he bought many years before that. The only difference with mine were literally just the CR in front of the serial number.

I'm from an expert on Colt, and I won't pretend to have proof, but I really think a lot of the CR prefix rifles were just different in the fact they had a CR vs LE in the serial number and nothing else. At least initially during the switch from LE to CR prefix.

[okie]

I also bought two OEM2 6920's through an LE distributor 2 years ago. The box was also advertised as LExxxx and all of the internals had the same level of quality and markings as my friends LE6920 that he bought many years before that. The only difference with mine were literally just the CR in front of the serial number.

I'm from an expert on Colt, and I won't pretend to have proof, but I really think a lot of the CR prefix rifles were just different in the fact they had a CR vs LE in the serial number and nothing else. At least initially during the switch from LE to CR prefix.

That's correct. The presumably subcontracted parts started showing up sporadically during the LE era, but the milspec parts hadn't disappeared completely by the time the CR came around. There are enough people reporting some or all correctly marked milspec parts in their CR rifle I'm sure it's true, just doesn't seem to be the norm.

[Stickman]

I'll be a pain and remind the newer guys reading this, none of these are really "milspec". While they might have parts in common, the lower receiver does not carry milspec triggers, disconnectors, or hammers. The barrels are not 14.5", nor is the lower receiver cut for an autosear, nor is there a autosear in the weapon. Guys who have been on this board for awhile mostly all know this, but I would not want a newer person reading this to misunderstand. These are the closest thing legal for us to buy off the shelf which is fully "milspec". Then again, not many people would probably want to buy a rifle which proclaimed "almost sorta milspec" on the box.

[okie]

I'll be a pain and remind the newer guys reading this, none of these are really "milspec". While they might have parts in common, the lower receiver does not carry milspec triggers, disconnectors, or hammers. The barrels are not 14.5", nor is the lower receiver cut for an autosear, nor is there a autosear in the weapon. Guys who have been on this board for awhile mostly all know this, but I would not want a newer person reading this to misunderstand. These are the closest thing legal for us to buy off the shelf which is fully "milspec". Then again, not many people would probably want to buy a rifle which proclaimed "almost sorta milspec" on the box.

Naturally, but it also needs to be recognized that the most important part (the BCG) can be 100% milspec. And in the case of many LE models, and the M4 in question in this thread, they do have real milspec barrels. I have complete faith in Colt's 16 inch barrels, though, as long as they're cage coded or have the combined MP mark. They come from the same blanks and have the same specs, save for that extra 1.5 inches.

[ABNAK]

I'll be a pain and remind the newer guys reading this, none of these are really "milspec". While they might have parts in common, the lower receiver does not carry milspec triggers, disconnectors, or hammers. The barrels are not 14.5", nor is the lower receiver cut for an autosear, nor is there a autosear in the weapon. Guys who have been on this board for awhile mostly all know this, but I would not want a newer person reading this to misunderstand. These are the closest thing legal for us to buy off the shelf which is fully "milspec". Then again, not many people would probably want to buy a rifle which proclaimed "almost sorta milspec" on the box.

Unless you were referring to the OAL being 16" with a perm-attached FH (yeah, I'm splitting hairs), the one I have from 2018 indeed has a 14.5" barrel with a perm-attached A2 FH and some kind of little spacer nut behind it that makes 16" total. Actually doesn't look bad and won't affect function, so.....

Are the remarks about the trigger group literal or something more, i.e. the trigger, disconnector, and hammer are obviously not FA but aren't they made with the same components (metallurgy, hardening included) as the mil-spec ones? Not being sarcastic at all, I'm genuinely interested. We all know what happens when you "ass-u-me" (courtesy of Ft. Benning, circa 1983) so I don't want to read too much into what you said or didn't say.

[GaWardawg]

I have one and love it. I had an zeroing issue with it and talked to Colt. They RMA the rifle and fixed it. No regrets. WarDawg

[okie]

I have one and love it. I had an zeroing issue with it and talked to Colt. They RMA the rifle and fixed it. No regrets. WarDawg

Canted front sight?

[lysander]

Are the remarks about the trigger group literal or something more, i.e. the trigger, disconnector, and hammer are obviously not FA but aren't they made with the same components (metallurgy, hardening included) as the mil-spec ones? Not being sarcastic at all, I'm genuinely interested. We all know what happens when you "ass-u-me" (courtesy of Ft. Benning, circa 1983) so I don't want to read too much into what you said or didn't say.

The trigger is a different casting. The mold is made so the slot is closed off at the back.

The hammers are also different castings. The casting does not have an auto hook.

The disconnect was a different stamping die. Now, they are rarely actually stamped but I think water jet machined, or just machined from plate, but in any case they are not automatic disconnects with the tail chopped off.

The fact that the casting molds or stamping dies are different does not means the materials or manufacturing processes are different.

[GaWardawg]

Canted front sight?

They actually just swapped a new complete upper . It wasn’t the front sight post. It shot extreme left. Nice groups. But I had the matech buis almost maxed out to the right to get it to hit center. I was thinking the same thing about the front sight housing. I placed an Acog on it and it’s zero was the same way. I’m thinking the receiver face might have been out of square . Or lastly the barrel bent . It’s perfect now. I never touched or moved the sight when I got it back. It’s a different upper and barrel. I marked them before shipping it back. It was a keyhole upper. Now it’s a square. Cheers WarDawg