Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 66

Thread: Colt LE6940SP???

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,177
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanB View Post
    You asked what I would do. I answered. What Ken would do is different. Since Colt isn't going to do what I want to do, I will do what Ken wants to do.
    Where has Ken written or demonstrated that he is unhappy with the quality of Colt's barrels and would swap them out given the opportunity, as you allege?

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    Did I miss something? I don't think he suggested that.

    Quote Originally Posted by justin_247 View Post
    Where has Ken written or demonstrated that he is unhappy with the quality of Colt's barrels and would swap them out given the opportunity, as you allege?



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,028
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    This thread has entered the realm of the absurd when Colt's quality control comes into question.

    Either coax this thread into something worthwhile or it ends up on the ash heap of history.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,922
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    My understanding of what Ken does is refined touch labor. Remember, the M-4/M-16 series is a mass-produced item that is set up to minimize touch labor as much as possible.

    He examines, guages, measures, hones and adjusts for optimal performance based on his lifetime of experience.

    You are paying for the knowledge and the valuable time of a master.

    And to underscore what Jay said about impuning the quality of Colt.

    That was some absurd mental gymnastics and made a mockery of Occam's Razor.
    Last edited by Heavy Metal; 08-28-10 at 22:09.
    My brother saw Deliverance and bought a Bow. I saw Deliverance and bought an AR-15.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,760
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    I certainly wasn't impugning Colt quality. I just wish they made CHF middies.

    Colt would do a lot of things differently if the TDP were easier to change. But it's not, so they don't.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by justin_247 View Post
    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.
    I don't see how you take 1 + 2 and wind up with the answer being "ostrich".

    SAW will tell you that the reason they don't do their package on guns other than Colt because those that are not required to build to a standard rarely do (to paraphrase Pat Rogers too).

    If there is any reason that Colt doesn't adopt SAW's work it's between SAW and Colt. I would theorize on the side of what was posted above re: Saleen and the Mustang, but also that Colt is building what their #1 customer asks for. They stick a 1.5" longer barrel in it for the commercial market but otherwise they're selling us the guns they are making for someone else. If their #1 customer doesn't ask for the changes that SAW makes then Colt isn't going to adopt them.

    To think that the existence of the SAW reliability package somehow means that there is something "wrong" with the 6920 that isn't "wrong" with other makes is absurd. To think that the fact that Colt doesn't incorporate SAW's upgrades in every production gun somehow makes the reliability package anything less is equally so.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,177
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    I don't see how you take 1 + 2 and wind up with the answer being "ostrich".
    I'm not questioning the reliability of Colt guns, as you and a few others are alleging. If anybody thinks I am, then they need to reread my posts where I specifically stated that, in my mind, Colts are good-to-go. Period.

    SAW will tell you that the reason they don't do their package on guns other than Colt because those that are not required to build to a standard rarely do (to paraphrase Pat Rogers too).
    So why does he refuse to do work on DDs and BCMs?

    If there is any reason that Colt doesn't adopt SAW's work it's between SAW and Colt. I would theorize on the side of what was posted above re: Saleen and the Mustang, but also that Colt is building what their #1 customer asks for. They stick a 1.5" longer barrel in it for the commercial market but otherwise they're selling us the guns they are making for someone else. If their #1 customer doesn't ask for the changes that SAW makes then Colt isn't going to adopt them.
    I think the Saleen analogy is non-nonsensical. Saleen doesn't modify existing parts and simply call it G2G... they swap out all kinds of components and do modifications that end up totaling to nearly 1/3 of the price of the stock car. It's a very bad analogy. If Ken were swapping out the Colt's parts with a Noveske barrel, LMT enhanced bolt, SS buffer spring, VLTOR stock, and a Troy folding rear sight, the Saleen analogy would be valid.

    To think that the existence of the SAW reliability package somehow means that there is something "wrong" with the 6920 that isn't "wrong" with other makes is absurd.
    At no point in time did I say anything to that effect.

    To think that the fact that Colt doesn't incorporate SAW's upgrades in every production gun somehow makes the reliability package anything less is equally so.
    Now, to sum it all up, are you all saying that the "reliability package" is completely unnecessary? Because so far that's what I've gotten out of this thread.

    In aircraft maintenance (my specialty) we have something called CPI - "continual process improvement." The concept behind it is that there are almost always better ways to do things. Ken obviously has a similar mindset. The first and easiest route to finding processes to improve is to look for trends, ie, things like components that fail before they should or are regularly found to function in a less than optimal manner. From his experience, Ken obviously believes there are 11-13 minor things with Colt carbines that are not performing optimally and that he believes require modification to ensure maximum reliability. The only way he could know this is if he identified some kind of trend here and there and applied a CPI mentality.

    In my questions I am doing nothing more than applying basic CPI practices. Fortunately, people who have this mentality usually prevail over others, or else we'd never have upgraded our C-130s or fixed the problems that existed with the early M-16s, among thousands of other things.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    What is the point of your posts and questions? What you appear to be doing is exactly as I said:
    1. Assuming that because there is an improvement available to the stock gun that the stock gun must somehow be lacking.
    2. Assuming that because SAW refuses to work on non-Colt firearms that only the Colt must be lacking.
    3. Assuming that because Colt doesn't incorporate these changes into production that the improvements must be unnecessary or worthless.


    You are wrong on all counts.


    Are these three points not the points you're making? Because that's how your posts are coming across, and from the other replies I'm not the only one that is reading your posts this way. What you are doing is casting aspersions on both Colt and SAW.

    The sad thing is that none of this has much of anything to do with the product(s) being discussed in the thread. If you have questions about SAW, the reliability package, etc. you should start another thread on the topic so we can leave this thread as the product announcement and discussion of the product that it should be.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    This is a warning. Keep this on target. If anyone wants to nit pick Ken Elmore's work or why he does/ doesn't do something contact him or the shop directly.

    The next one who starts going off the deep end is going to get nuked.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,177
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    Consider my questioning ceased.

    I'm going to buy one of Ken Elmore's carbines and see what it is that he does. From there I will determine if there is anything significant enough that improvements would be needed, and thus appease my curiosity.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 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
  •