|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"You have never lived until you have almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know." - Written by an unknown soldier in Vietnam.
Thanks for answering the question!
Member of the JPFO, NRA, and TSRA!
Colt 6945SP
Looks like I was right about the timeline.
while the original carbine that started this thread is a 10" barrel cut-down from a full-length and re-threaded and re-finished, this version is a factory 10.3" Colt barrel. Note the bayonet lug, for those that lamented it's removal on the 10".
I hope to have a 6940SP or 6945SP upper in my hands perhaps as early as this week for a review and probably a print article.
While I have no doubt that the reliability package performed by SAW does produce results, I do wonder why they're not being integrated into the manufacture of Colt rifles.
The fact that it adds so much cost to the price of the rifle tells me that it's most likely using some proprietary parts that are currently being manufactured in very small quantities. If these were actually integrated into the assembly line, the cost would probably be significantly reduced.
I can understand why SAW refuses to do this package with non-Colt rifles like those from Tier 3 manufacturers Bushmaster, DPMS, Armalite, Model 1 Sales, etc., but why won't he do the upgrades for rifles from companies such as BCM, DD, and Noveske that adhere very closely to the TDP? Is this an indicator that there may be something inherently problematic in the Colt production and quality control process that Colt is missing?
very cool...but like just about anything with Colt stamped on it, it's overpriced. i like it though.
“If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.”
Out of curiosity, why the desire for the bayo lug on a 10" bbl? You can't mount a bayonet on it with or without the lug, and the lug is just that much more weight and takes up space that could be used for mounting a can. Is it just nostalgia, or am I missing something useful that the lug can be used for besides mounting a pig-sticker?
I'm not reaching. I'm just saying that there are obviously things that Colt repeatedly does in its manufacturing process that are apparently not ideal when it comes to reliability, or else this "reliability package" would be irrelevant.
Not only that, it would go to show that other manufacturers who are adhering to the TDP may have the same problems.
Either that, or the "reliability package" is a hock of crap.
Bookmarks