Printable View
Every newcomer to the AR world should read this before dropping coin on any old EBR:
Oh No! I bought a BM/RRA/Stag before I knew better!
ETA: the forward assist can be used to press the bolt back into battery, after a press check.
What's that old saying that permeates the virtual universe? Oh yeah, 'better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.'
Colt is not copying anyone though. They are given a Technical Data Package by the government, which currently has a couple thousand improvements over the old Armalites (when they were still the real Armalite and not just a name). They are not built to Colt's standards, they're built to the military's requirements. Up until a couple months ago, only Colt had the M4 TDP and only FN had the M16 TDP. Now, Euger has the TDP.Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperorMA
The difference is, Ruger is only allowed to build according to the TDP for military rifles while Colt will continue to build military rifles AND civilian/LE rifles to the TDP. This is what puts them at the very top for a reliable FIGHTING RIFLE.
I've owned two Knight's Armament SR15's, one with over 15,000 rounds in about a year. Had or have a couple Noveskes, a few Colts, a couple BCM's, LMT's and so on. The SR15 is a $2,200 rifle. It is in no way a better fighting rifle than a Colt 6920. It does have a longer service life and is slightly softer shooting though. The bolt and barrel extension are a nice improvement. But, even though it's extremely reliable, it's not necessarily more reliable and also most likely not as consistent from rifle to rifle (where you know exactly what you're getting if you buy 100 rifles) as a Colt 6920.
For the record, the 6921 is the absolutely closest to a military issued rifle as you can get. The nly difference between the 6921 and 6920 is the 6920 has an extra 1.5" of barrel.
For the record, my primary rifle is a BCM 14.5" and my work rifle is (was - the upper was stolen, but I'm replacing it soon) an LMT 10.5". If I were to buy another rifle right now, it would be a Centurion Arms. Not better than a Colt, just different.
To the OP - if you have not made your decision yet, PSA has their Patrol Rifle on sale for $999.00. Comes with an Aimpoint PRO. Smokin' deal. I may pick one up to part out for my DMR buil...er...Assembly.
I'd go with any of those listed above, They are all good guns. I'm happy with my Rock River,Its not top of the line but I got a good deal on it and it does what it needs to do.
I own a CORE15 and I love it. I have shot the Colt and Sig. Not saying its a better system, but its the one I prefer.
I have the Sig M400 and the Colt SP6920. IMO, the Sig is every bit the rifle the Colt is. Here's a quick comparison run-down:
Both have an F marked front sight base.
Both have M4 feed ramps cut before anodizing.
Both have 1:7 rifling.
Both have chromed chamber and bores.
Both have equal staking on the gas key and castle nut.
Colt has an M16 bolt carrier.
Sig has an enhanced AR15 bolt carrier.
Colt bolt is MP marked.
Sig bolt is not MP marked although Sig states their supplier MP tests all bolts, whether they are marked or not. *
Colt comes with an H buffer.
Sig comes with a standard carbine buffer.
Colt barrel is MP marked.
Sig barrel is not MP marked and Sig could not state if their barrel is MP tested. *
Colt barrel is HP tested.
Sig states all of their barrels are HP tested, whether or not marked. *
Colt barrel is button rifled.
Sig states their M400 barrel is cold hammer forged and made of chrome moly vanadium meeting mil-spec. *
Colt has a standard mag release.
Sig has an ambi mag release.
Sig has a upper/lower tightening device in the lower, the Colt does not.
Sig has built-in sling point attachments in the lower, the Colt does not.
Sig has an extractor support in the barrel extension, Colt does not.
Sig has 6-position mil-spec diameter buffer tube, Colt has 4-position mil-spec tube.
Both have equally bad single stage triggers.
Out of the box, the Sig had no blemishes or marks and was cosmetically perfect, if that is important to you. The Colt had various nicks and dings from careless assembly, most notably around the trigger guard where the rear pin was installed, but also on the delta ring and on various spots on the upper receiver.
The Sig upper/lower fit is tight. There is no play whatsoever - either in the vertical or horizontal. The pins can be pushed out with your fingers. There is slop in the Colt that can be fixed substantially with an Accuwedge.
Both consistently eject to the 3:45 position with everything from cheap PMC Bronze and UMC ammo to NATO M193 and M855.
I can discern no practical difference in accuracy.
Both have been 100% reliable when using quality ammo.
Sig has a lifetime warranty, Colt one year.
*I spoke to Sig Sauer directly to determine this information. With patience, and insisting on speaking to folks who can answer these questions with authority, they will speak to you about the parts used on their guns – although they will not tell you who makes their components.
Here's a comparison of BCGs, and pic of Sig castle nut staking:
http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/...rms/BCGs_4.jpg
http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/...rms/BCGs_3.jpg
http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/...rms/BCGs_2.jpg
http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/...rms/BCGs_1.jpg
RowlandP: Awesome post. I still think the Colt is better, but mainly because of the carrier and maybe some of the QC stuff they do. If you got a SIG, sold their carrier and put a FA carrier in from a reputable maker, I'd probably call them roughly equal. The SIG certainly sounds like it has some more bells and whistles. My criteria probably isn't the same as you though, and at the end of the day, a happy customer is a happy customer. The SIG still seems to be a fine choice.
I've contemplated replacing the BCG with a Colt or BCM BCG and going to an H buffer. But given the perfect function of the Sig, I can't justify it. There is no evidence of over-gassing. The Sig and the Colt ejection patterns are identical with the same ammo. Sig seems to have tuned it very well.
Someone had Palmetto State Armory (PSA) for around $700-800 a couple of weeks ago.
These guys here at DC have some good sense, and if I ever go to buy an AR it will be one from PSA, due to their knowledge
Blows away DPMS and the Bush.
Anyone have an LWRC? I know they are more expensive, but how would they compare to Colt or other name-brands?
I've had a few. They did nothing better than my BCM or Colt set up the way I like them. I still have an 8" PSD. The "new and improved" LWRCi is supposedly better than they were before. If I needed a piston that bad, I'd buy a SCAR or find an HK416 upper on the used market until HK offers them to civilians. The MR556 seems good to go too, but I don't have any experience with it. The LMT MRP is another good option, as is Colt's new piston AR.
As for Sig vs Colt, they may look the same on paper and a sample of one may prove to work well, but take 100 of each and I imagine the differences will show. Even guys like Paul Buffoni, the owner of BCM, says that Colt's are the best of the best for fighting rifles.
Personally I'm an LMT CQB MRP fan. For a Mil-Spec type AR platform it really doesn't get much better than this.
I found mine on Gunbroker for $1400. That's a steal compared to their MSRP listed on their site.
Purchase the 10.5" bbl assembly and you simply unscrew two torx head screws and replace the bbl assembly in 5 minutes. Both your 16" bbl and an SBR with the 10.5" bbl assembly. Or, purchase the 12" piston kit. All from LMT
I own an LWRC M6A2 and it is absolutely the best rifle that I haver had the pleasure too shoot. The only upgrades or changes that I've seen are the bolt carrier Tomb Stone instead of the typical gas key and the spiral flutted barrels on one of two of the other models. Other than that, their still the same. I still run a typical BCG (LWRC fluted bolt carrier) with the standard gas key and it still has yet too fail after 13,000+ rounds. Very good rifle.
I would never purchase a Reed Knight rifle. (insert the evil grin emoticon)
That's just me.
I actually forgot about posing this question here until I finally had some time today to browse the forum. Well I don't know if it's the right decision but I had a PSA on layaway but went in yesterday and got the Ruger Scout Rifle instead. I keep debating on what's best and with the political climate went with that route and started stocking up on ammo for my 30-30 too. More politically correct I guess you would say and I may be wrong but I'm afraid all the Black Rifles will be banned at some point. I figure if the S does hit the fan I'm not going to be in the urban areas so I don't need the high rate of fire of the AR. It would definitely be more fun but I not sure it would be more practical and since I was looking more for a SHTF or TEOTWAWKI rifle I went that route. Not as fast but more rounded, more conserving on ammo, more applicable for hunting, etc, etc.
I don't have a ton of experience with them, but I'd question a company that lists "Chambered in .223/5.56 x 45 mm NATO" in their spec sheet. It's fine to stamp that on a lower...but chamber spec should be specific in the spec sheet...it's one or the other. It sure as hell isn't both.Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashdog
Definitely. You'll wait a bit and QC isn't the most attentive (if you want that, go with BCM or Centurion) but you definitely get the best value with PSA. FYI, they're $59 blem stripped lowers are in stock again.Quote:
Originally Posted by oneshot
Didn't know you still had it. And all you brought out to shoot was the 14.5"?! You're holdin out on me, man :yup:Quote:
Originally Posted by jonconsiglio
Haha, I'll bring it out next time... Either that or the 9" AAC 300blk I put on layaway.