Interesting Trip To The Gun Store....LE6920's Galore...

[tango-papa]

Just an opinion based on a reasonable level of KSA's with the AR15/M16 rifle...

The Colt 6920 has come to be viewed like an "entry level weapon of good quality" by those who have a need/want for a rifle that looks shiny and pretty on instagram.
The Colt is still the gold standard by which all others are judged, but most people have no idea why.

There are a handful of brands doing things right, and if you go deep enough, all of them have applied the "gold standard" to achieve the level of "doing things right".

[GyroF-16]

Just an opinion based on a reasonable level of KSA's with the AR15/M16 rifle...

The Colt 6920 has come to be viewed like an "entry level weapon of good quality" by those who have a need/want for a rifle that looks shiny and pretty on instagram.
The Colt is still the gold standard by which all others are judged, but most people have no idea why.

There are a handful of brands doing things right, and if you go deep enough, all of them have applied the "gold standard" to achieve the level of "doing things right".

Would you be willing to elaborate on the “why”?

Not being snarky- I’m trying to learn what makes a good AR, and tangentially, why Colt does it so well.

[rob_s]

The Colt is still the gold standard by which all others are judged, but most people have no idea why.

There are a handful of brands doing things right, and if you go deep enough, all of them have applied the "gold standard" to achieve the level of "doing things right".

Would you be willing to elaborate on the “why”?

Not being snarky- I’m trying to learn what makes a good AR, and tangentially, why Colt does it so well.

One way to look at this is to look at the “TDP” or “Technical Data Package” (the list of specs that outline the requirements for a US-military-purchased M4) as similar to a building code. It’s the bare minimum that should be considered necessary to have an AR carbine that is functional, reliable, and long-lived. Much like building “to code”, one may exceed some or all of the bare minimum requirements, however if a builder exceeds a requirement they should (a) provide verifiable evidence that the “improvement” is in fact better and (b) not sacrifice other aspects to achieve same.

I would say that the easiest example of exceeding the spec is the “mid-length” gas system. It was theorized for years to be “better” but without verifiable proof the alleged “better” didn’t matter. Finally a few years back there was scientific testing that proved the mid-length was better, seemingly without sacrificing any other features. So, then, arguably the Colt CCU is “better” than a 6920 because it meets all of the same minimum standards for everything else, but improves the gas system (and, theoretically, the ergonomics and implementation with the linger, free-floated, handguard).

Many boutique and bargain makers claim better. However, many also claim better in one aspect while sacrificing in another. Maybe that matters to the buyer, maybe it doesn’t. Sometimes, even quantifiable improvements (like the mid-length gas system) may not be better enough to tempt a buyer, prompt a wholesale replacement of a currently known-good “old-busted”, or may come with other negatives like logistics and spare parts availability that are unique to the purchaser.

Someone really ought to make a chart and then do a write up of what all the features mean...

[UNM1136]

When I took Ken Elmore's armorer's course it was described this way....

Colt, when they had the .mil contract, had the TDP. That made sure that all the holes and pins were the right size and in the right place. They also had 349 separate gauging stations where the quality of each and every part was checked before being allowed into the assembly line. That meant jobs, and that meant money. The guns coming off the line tended to meet the spec, and thus were a higher standard than manufacturers who MPI'd one bolt in five, or fifty, or five hundred.

You had a far higher chance of getting a gun "to spec" than most other manufacturers.

Many people claim/claimed their guns are "as good as Colt", which says a lot...

@Wayne Dobbs

pat

[GyroF-16]

Thanks @UNM1136 and @rob_s
I appreciate the information, and welcome more...

So what I’m hearing so far is that Colt’s QC was essentially unequaled, at least at the time they had the government contract.

That chart / write up of features that @rob_s imagined really peaks my interest.

[tango-papa]

Would you be willing to elaborate on the “why”?

Not being snarky- I’m trying to learn what makes a good AR, and tangentially, why Colt does it so well.

The examples posted by rob_s and UNM1136 are spot on.

The "chart" rob_s referred to is/was a great comparison tool along with the write-up(s) that went along with it.
He (rob_s) created it several years ago and later took it offline after it created quite the controversy in certain interweb circles.

You can find a few different versions of "the chart" by searching for "m4 carbine the chart".
I have a few different versions of the chart - happy to send the latest version I saved years ago if you like.

tp

[GyroF-16]

The examples posted by rob_s and UNM1136 are spot on.

The "chart" rob_s referred to is/was a great comparison tool along with the write-up(s) that went along with it.
He (rob_s) created it several years ago and later took it offline after it created quite the controversy in certain interweb circles.

You can find a few different versions of "the chart" by searching for "m4 carbine the chart".
I have a few different versions of the chart - happy to send the latest version I saved years ago if you like.

tp

Thanks, TP

I wondered if there was some veiled irony the the “chart” reference. Then concluded I was too cynical.

I’ll search for “the chart”, but would welcome your version via PM, if it’s not too much trouble.

[tango-papa]

Thanks, TP

I wondered if there was some veiled irony the the “chart” reference. Then concluded I was too cynical.

I’ll search for “the chart”, but would welcome your version via PM, if it’s not too much trouble.

No trouble at all - will see if I can attach/send via PM.


FYI (I dug out my notes to make sure I got it right)...

I took pretty good notes each time I attended William Larson's (RIP) Semper Paratus Arms Armorer course. He made sure to define/explain Milspec very thoroughly as follows:

What is Milspec?

The Milspec is a document (Technical Data Package) that describes the essential technical requirements for purchased materiel that is military unique or substantially modified commercial items. MIL-STD-961 covers the content and format for defense specifications.

The TDP is a proprietary document, owned by Colt, that details how to build a Milspec M4/M16. Any company that makes a part for a military contract carbine/rifle has access to the portion of the TDP applicable to the part they are making.

Milspec criteria include every aspect of the rifle, from the materials it's made from to the treatment of those materials, the dimensions of components made from those materials, testing of these parts, wear and durability, accuracy and service life.

A Milspec rifle is approved by a US Government inspector.

Why is Milspec important? Standardization is beneficial in achieving interoperability, ensuring products meet certain requirements, commonality, reliability and total cost of ownership.


tp

[UNM1136]

Yeah, Ken mentioned that there are Mil-specs for everything from motor oil to aglets. WHITCH Mil-spec is the key that means anything.

pat

[tango-papa]

Yeah, Ken mentioned that there are Mil-specs for everything from motor oil to aglets. WHITCH Mil-spec is the key that means anything.

pat

Elmore's armorer course is on my list of classes to take.
I've got the Colt AR15/M16 cert. (x1) and Will Larson's (RIP) course (x2).
Was scheduled for a recert with Colt about 2 weeks ago, but it got covid-cancelled.