Now that the silliness of the 6720 being available only through Clyde Armory has subsided…
I’m noticing that the 6720 seems to carry roughly a $100 premium over the 6920. While it makes a little bit of sense, in that production numbers (due to demand) the 6920 far outranks the 6720 (and hence may carry a lower cost-to-manufacture), it seems that the barrel should be a bit less expensive to manufacture (little less material and fewer machining steps to profile the 203 cut).
The 6720 does come with a Matech rear sight, but I’d think that’s a relative wash against the deletion of the carry-handle/A2 sight…unless that’s reflective of Colt having to buy the Matech, as opposed to making their own carry-handle/sight combo.
Beyond market dynamics, with the 6920 being the mainstay and the 6720 being a niche model, am I missing any other reasons for the consistent price delta between these two models? I’m thinking that the 6720 might pick up a bit more steam in popularity (which may or may not be what Colt wants) if it had pricing parity with its porkier brother.
As a follow-on, I’m also wondering if achieving that parity could be accomplished by deleting the Matech, since rear sights are one of those intensely personal decisions for flat-top shooters?
The 6920 and 6720 are not the same price to Distributors. They also take longer to get from Colt than a 6920 does (as Colt doesn’t make many of them).
For whatever reason, the 6720 does not sell as well as the 6920. IMHO, it is the BEST gun Colt makes and am always suprised that people do not suck this thing up.
I’d suspected that Colt was charging a bit of a premium for these. I’m guessing the numbers, and buying the BUIS out-of-house have something to do with it.
If they fly off the shelves as-configured, I’d understand a dealer applying the “ain’t broke/don’t fix” strategy. However, if they tend to languish a bit, I’m wondering if there’s an opportunity to offer without the Matech (against, say a $60 or $70 deletion credit) as either a BUIS-less rifle, or with your choice of rear sights (at the appropriate add-on for the selected sight (LMT/Magpul/Troy/KAC, etc)). This would build some value in getting the rear sight the user wants, and (theoretically) the dealer could lay off the Matechs to the people who want them at a slight profit (since they seem to go for $80ish new from dealers).
Personally, I cobbled my “6720” together from a 6520 factory gun, swapping out the upper, and subbing in a 6920 BCG (my 6520 came with the neutered BCG). At the time, you weren’t going to find a 6720 from anywhere other than Clyde’s, at their premium. I have, since then, thought about getting a factory-configured 6720…but the price premium has somewhat held me at-bay.
For all who didn’t catch it…the 6720 is now available for a very nice price from G&R. Show some lightweight love by snapping these puppies up!
and in response to your last, Grant…
I agree that even at $1050, it’s not at all unfair for a Colt… The only thing that makes it seem so, is the intense price competition (and resulting great deals) in the 6920 market.
Swapping the upper receiver on a 6520 was a popular mod for a long time. I’m glad Colt finally offered the configuration from the factory, complete with the standard (auto) bolt carrier.
At that price point, there’s no excuse for good-as. I paid more than that from Clyde when they were first offered.
I am also under the impression that the 6720 doesn’t use an F marked FSB. (Open to correction of course.) And it comes with the matech folding rear instead of a carry handle.
The LW barrel offerings generally dont come with a F-marked FSB…it didnt on my 6520 (of course). I’m guessing no on the 6720 either, as they’d have to madge a special diameter FSB for just that model.
It doesnt really cause a problem…just had to adjust my front sight up a bit to compensate. If the aesthetics of a not-flush front post offends, BM (gasp!) does offer a slightly taller front post as a drop-in.
You are correct. It doesn’t use an “F” marked FSB. To compensate for the lower FSB, a 9mm SMG sight post is used. Colt could have built it correctly using the FSB from a 6933 but then they would have to deal with all of the bitching and whining that it didn’t have a bayonet lug.
Prior to the release of the 6720, the unwashed masses were screaming build it and we will buy it. Well, it got built. Question is, what happened to all of “I’d buy one crowd”?
No. I haven’t had a BUIS that isn’t compatible with the 6720, including but not limited to the LT, DD, LMT, Magpul MBUS, Matech, and the OEM carry handle.
It would have been wailing.
Prior to the release of the 6720, the unwashed masses were screaming build it and we will buy it. Well, it got built. Question is, what happened to all of “I’d buy one crowd”?
So how many revolutions of the front sight post are needed to make up the 0.040 inches of difference between an A2 FSB and an F-marked FSB? Is it going to be so much that standard posts are going to require a lot of adjustment? I like to use a Trijicon front sight post and a fixed elevation rear BUIS so I don’t want it to be unscrewed out the FSB a hell of a lot.
It’s not that bad. I use a Trijicon on mine as well. It’s not flush…but if I remember correctly, it zeroed about 4-6 clicks from flush, with a LMT rear A2 sight that’s set for RIBZ (100 yds).
