Colt again selling to us mere mortals

[Tombs]

My favorite rifle is a Colt A4 20".

You folks can say what you want about colt, I own a ridiculous amount of different makes of AR15s.
Show me another rifle that is fully NSN marked with manufacturer stamped BCGs, and everything done correctly to specification. FNs aren't, they aren't allowed to due to TDP.
BCM may be great, but I also don't see these things with BCM either.

Colt is the only company, allowed by law, to sell you a TDP correct rifle.

 

[Nickbau5]

just because someone is using the specs doesn't make them good, you can follow the specs of a turd, doesn't make that turd any better than a cows. Markings mean nothing, performance and cost mean more, I'd rather pay $600 for an unmarked AR than pay $2500 for one just because of the "brand" when they'll both perform the same, and in some instances the unmarked can be more reliable than the brand. Buying based on brand is no better than people who pay $300 for the newest jordans or nike clothes.

 

[CPT Nervous]

My favorite rifle is a Colt A4 20".

You folks can say what you want about colt, I own a ridiculous amount of different makes of AR15s.
Show me another rifle that is fully NSN marked with manufacturer stamped BCGs, and everything done correctly to specification. FNs aren't, they aren't allowed to due to TDP.
BCM may be great, but I also don't see these things with BCM either.

Colt is the only company, allowed by law, to sell you a TDP correct rifle.

And why do I care about NSN's? Why do you? Did you serve? I did. I know that "Mil-spec" means something different to me than it does to many others. I don't care what's stamped on my parts. I care that they are made to high standards, and they work.


I guarantee a BCM will outperform any Colt every made. I've shot Colts and FN's while I was in. I will take BCM over either, any day.

 

[Tombs]

just because someone is using the specs doesn't make them good, you can follow the specs of a turd, doesn't make that turd any better than a cows. Markings mean nothing, performance and cost mean more, I'd rather pay $600 for an unmarked AR than pay $2500 for one just because of the "brand" when they'll both perform the same, and in some instances the unmarked can be more reliable than the brand. Buying based on brand is no better than people who pay $300 for the newest jordans or nike clothes.

Buying based on brand? Not really, nobody else offers a true to spec rifle for legal reasons.
I'm sure other things are just as good. But there is a market for authenticity.

If you want a rifle from the factory, that is being shipped with uppers off the same production line that military contracts are getting, that's the only brand that is available unless you manage to find surplus runs.

My FN is fantastic and one of the slickest actions of any of the ARs I have, but it also isn't built to spec for legal reasons. So it has a button rifled barrel instead of a hammer forged barrel. Is hammer forging superior? Just about everyone aside from accuracy purists think so. My FN was also about $500 more than my colt.

 

[Nickbau5]

Milspec is pretty bad though, I wouldn't pay extra for it. I think it's better to build your own piecemeal because you can get the best of all parts, that will be better quality than FN or Colt for half the price. Colt charging $2500 for repros (not even using Colt MFG's receivers) when Brownells is selling pretty much the exact same (if not better) thing for literally 1/2 the price, and now they're under $1k, there is no place for the colt premium in the current market. Well, except for the people that think like this and that "Colt is the only TRUE spec", when it's not even a noticeable difference. But go ahead and overpay for a horse on the side of your gun with basic milspec parts while I can get 2 better quality ARs for the same price.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Milspec is pretty bad though, I wouldn't pay extra for it. I think it's better to build your own piecemeal because you can get the best of all parts, that will be better quality than FN or Colt for half the price. Colt charging $2500 for repros (not even using Colt MFG's receivers) when Brownells is selling pretty much the exact same (if not better) thing for literally 1/2 the price, and now they're under $1k, there is no place for the colt premium in the current market. Well, except for the people that think like this and that "Colt is the only TRUE spec", when it's not even a noticeable difference. But go ahead and overpay for a horse on the side of your gun with basic milspec parts while I can get 2 better quality ARs for the same price.

Please explain why Milspec is bad...

 

[Tombs]

Please explain why Milspec is bad...

I guess some folks prefer the gee-wizes rather than what has worked and become the longest serving rifle in US history, with broad adoption globally.

 

[Nickbau5]

Heavy trigger pull, "sold to the lowest bidder", usually cheap parts, and all around just not as good as commercial products. Just remember, HMMVs are "milspec", the term doesn't automatically mean quality, it just means who can pump out the cheapest.

I guess some folks prefer the gee-wizes rather than what has worked and become the longest serving rifle in US history, with broad adoption globally.

Ah yes, the "gee-wizes" like lighter handguards, more comfortable stocks, better triggers, better buffers, better barrels, etc. Being the first does not always mean being the best, things upgrade and get better. Quad-rails are overly cumbersome and only allow for attachments for half the barrel and 4 degrees, while you could get a much lighter MLOK for the full length of barrel and have attachment points at 8 degrees. Also "what has worked" doesn't mean anything, it's the same as saying "jussasgud" when buying a chinese Alice rig. Milspec shouldn't be a gold standard because there are better things on the commercial market.

 

[Nickbau5]

Also, if no one else is allowed to have NSN markings, how could anyone with better products possibly have it. You can't put "Ford Focus" on a Ferrari

 

[Clay Pigeon]

I guess some folks prefer the gee-wizes rather than what has worked and become the longest serving rifle in US history, with broad adoption globally.

Yep... I look at the Colts I have bought in the last 45 years and see what they are worth now when compared to others. Three years ago was the last time I bought Colt AR's and then 6920's were 650 bucks out the door. I bought two and I can get the money back easily on Any Colt I ever bought in my life, bet that cant be done with BCM ar's.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Heavy trigger pull, "sold to the lowest bidder", usually cheap parts, and all around just not as good as commercial products. Just remember, HMMVs are "milspec", the term doesn't automatically mean quality, it just means who can pump out the cheapest.



Ah yes, the "gee-wizes" like lighter handguards, more comfortable stocks, better triggers, better buffers, better barrels, etc. Being the first does not always mean being the best, things upgrade and get better. Quad-rails are overly cumbersome and only allow for attachments for half the barrel and 4 degrees, while you could get a much lighter MLOK for the full length of barrel and have attachment points at 8 degrees. Also "what has worked" doesn't mean anything, it's the same as saying "jussasgud" when buying a chinese Alice rig. Milspec shouldn't be a gold standard because there are better things on the commercial market.

So Milspec is bad???
So I as the customer SET ALL specifications for a product I put out on bid for purchase and then I as the customer that set these specs, pick what manufacturing company I want to build my product that I set the specs on...And thats bad..... lol...

 

[jspy5]

I guarantee a BCM will outperform any Colt every made. I've shot Colts and FN's while I was in. I will take BCM over either, any day.

Refresh my memory but is BCM a manufacturer of parts or an assembler ? How are they better than Colt or FN..... asking for a friend.

 

[shibumiseeker]

So Milspec is bad???

It's not automatically good. Milspec has become more of a marketing term than anything else. I owned a company that contracted to make some equipment for the military once and milspec was just a set of specifications.





Whether it is good or bad is entirely on the specifications. There certainly are a lot of things out there that are cheaper than "milspec" and way better quality. There are also a lot of items that are "milspec" that are among the top of the line. All milspec tells you is that for THAT ITEM it meets a set of specifications. You have no further information than that, so whether it is good or bad needs further investigation.

 

[ECS686]

It's not automatically good. Milspec has become more of a marketing term than anything else. I owned a company that contracted to make some equipment for the military once and milspec was just a set of specifications.





Whether it is good or bad is entirely on the specifications. There certainly are a lot of things out there that are cheaper than "milspec" and way better quality. There are also a lot of items that are "milspec" that are among the top of the line. All milspec tells you is that for THAT ITEM it meets a set of specifications. You have no further information than that, so whether it is good or bad needs further investigation.

The term Milspec isn't automatically bad. Now the term Miltary Grade....I'd run from anyone using that as a slogan

I will say when I joined the USAF in 1986. I was issued a Colt M 16 (the AF never issued the A1) Mine eben had the 3 orong Flash Hider. As a young SP protecting Nukes I shot that a lot and I dont remember any issues with mine or many others in my 7 years in. Saw the FN M 16 A2 as a replacement

Issued the FN for approximately 10 years then Back to Comt in the M4 format. I saw more issues with the FN brand than the Colts. That said I saw more issues out of the M4s than the older 16s as far as Colt to Colt comparison

. Most common M4 issue was trigger return springs and burst cams would break early on with not a lot of round out of them. But if yhey didnt go down they were generally good to go. If the M4s broke early or they didnt at al!

If folks don't like Colt for whatever reasons thats their buisness. Yes they have some better modeles (less expensive) with more bells and whistles But Colt is a buisness making buisness decisions. and agree or bot (lots of of nots here) They are tappingninto a demohraph thatoves the Name (Think Harley Davidson there are bettwr less exoensive bikes yet they still hold on) If they can get what they get out of it then good for them. Not gonna hate on them for it.

Thats just me though.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

It's not automatically good. Milspec has become more of a marketing term than anything else. I owned a company that contracted to make some equipment for the military once and milspec was just a set of specifications.





Whether it is good or bad is entirely on the specifications. There certainly are a lot of things out there that are cheaper than "milspec" and way better quality. There are also a lot of items that are "milspec" that are among the top of the line. All milspec tells you is that for THAT ITEM it meets a set of specifications. You have no further information than that, so whether it is good or bad needs further investigation.

I'm aware of what it is... The buyer sets the specs to the parameters of what they want the specs to be.. Is it a plastic widgit that some flash is acceptable or aerospace parts.
Its funny that some people like Nickbau5 and others here believe that Milspec to the government is the cheapest parts available.

I'm waiting for Nick to answer.

 

[CPT Nervous]

I'm aware of what it is... The buyer sets the specs to the parameters of what they want the specs to be.. Is it a plastic widgit that some flash is acceptable or aerospace parts.
Its funny that some people like Nickbau5 and others here believe that Milspec to the government is the cheapest parts available.

I'm waiting for Nick to answer.

It's not that it's the "cheapest parts available," it's that the companies making mil-spec parts are going to make them as cheap as they can while staying within those specs. There is nothing wrong with mil-spec, but if I have a choice, I am going to buy a better rifle at a lower cost. Mil-spec is a great starting point, but there is so much room for improvement.

I keep pushing BCM because as far as I'm concerned, they're the best for the dollar. Daniel Defense isn't bad, but they tend to be overgassed. I'd still take a DD over a Colt.

 

[actaeon277]

Mil Spec = minimum requirements to do the job, while maintaining a "standard" for parts.

 

[BowhuntnHoosier]

So just curious, what about Ruger (Bill Rugers 10 rd mag comment) or S&W (the whole lock deal when Safety Lock ownd them which had morw to do than any Clinton agreement)

You boycot them too?

They stopped selling to the public when the public was buying anything and everything. BM melted a lot of guns from gun buybacks. I will not buy anything from them. I do not own any Rugers really do not like the company. S&W yeah they put the locks on but I have owned them for a very long time. I guess we all have our never ever wil I's. BM and Colt are two of mine.

 

[venenoindy]

About a year ago I decided to get an order AR as over the years sold off most of what I had, I did took a look at Colt 6920 Magpul edition and if I really wanted could had it for about $830.00. In general AR's were at the point that prices were at its lowest that they ever been, with some homework I was able to buy 2 LWRC's DI's for just a tad under a grand each. In my opinion far superior rifle in quality for not much more. Today I'm very glad I purchased them, like others mentioned in my opinion quality is not there and while not a bad rifle I could care less if I don't see a 6920 ever again.