Good points. I ignore the ‘buy it because it looks cool’ posts.
In the end it wasn’t the weight or the barrel profile, it was the twist. I’m not a huge fan of the .223 round itself and feel a heavier bullet helps to compensate for the smaller size. I’ll be shooting 75g and according to everything I’ve read the 1/9 can’t handle the 75g while the 1/7 is ideal … so 6920 it is.
I really think it’s a minor point, they are basically the exact same rifle with different barrels. Now the idea of shortening the 6721 to 14.5 is intriguing … maybe I’ll buy a 6721 for my 2nd Colt
Or, get the 6721 for a couple hundred less (I paid $1125 OTD), send it to Grant for a Noveske N4 barrel and then sell the Colt barrel to help offset the cost. That’s what I’m doing.
Ummmm … you “feel” this? It’s great that you won’t pick a gun based on looking cool, but picking ammo based on feelings tends to cancel that out. How about some facts?
Not that I want to make this thread into the one billionth online argument about which .224-diameter bullet is “better.” Just trying to stimulate a little thought.
I’ll be shooting 75g and according to everything I’ve read the 1/9 can’t handle the 75g while the 1/7 is ideal … so 6920 it is.
Your’re about to read something different. Both 77gr mag-length loads and 75-gr Hornady AMAX extra-length match loads are perfectly all right in my heavy-barrel 1:8 match AR, and in my 1:9 M&P-15. What I would NOT try are the 90-grain match bullets, not without a 1:7 or 1:6.5 twist, but then your Colt is not going to do anything silly like shoot at 600-yard bullseyes, so no worries mate.
I really think it’s a minor point, they are basically the exact same rifle with different barrels. Now the idea of shortening the 6721 to 14.5 is intriguing … maybe I’ll buy a 6721 for my 2nd Colt
Now that’s good thinking all around! My department will be issuing me a 6721 pretty soon. The only thing better than buying a Colt is not having to buy one. I loved my Colt Sporter Lightweight that I got new in 1991, but the post-ban prices got too high and I converted it to cash back in 2002.
I like the 6721 and 6920. I dont think the difference is huge enough to lose sleep over. If I had to choose between the two I’d probably get the 6721 because its cheaper
My initial responce to the 6721 was kinda negative, but that was based more
on balance than overall weight. After I got one in a trade last year, I swapped
lowers with an A2 stocked rifle, and BOOM …instant love! Later converted
her lower to an A2 setup and added a MIAD grip. Then it was time for a set
of M4 handguards. Thus far my 6721 has been reborn as a nearly perfect
handling carbine; the weight , being evenly distributed, doesn’t bother me in
the least. Neither does the lack of the slider for my purposes. The 1/9 bbl.
twist could be a smidge tighter (like 1/8) but does well in my limited use
thus far. Yes, you could say this is tactically the opposite of say, the 6520,
but for a weapon that bridges the gap between carbine and rifle…6721
could very well be your piece. I must add though, that because of the
weight factor, I won’t be adding a lot of doo-dads onto this weapon, as is
the case with my 6920. She’ll be staying close to KISS …and that’s also
OK with me.
Hi guys, I am new to the site, but wanted to add my opinion on this thread.
I recently was in the market for a new rifle for patrol work, and decided on the Colt 6920 LE Carbine vs the 6721 for the following reasons.
M4 handguards
1/7 twist barrel - Allows you to shoot ALL available ammo, even the 75 grain stuff.
Step down in the barrel allows you to “add” launchers at a later date if need be.
And of course, “looks cooler” had to be thrown in.
Both rifles are superb in detail and craftsmanship, “it’s a Colt” what would you expect.
Either one would be nice, I went with the 6920 for the above mentioned reasons.
Good luck with you future purchase, but give the 6920 consideration for the ammo principle, you may not use the 75 grain stuff now, but who knows in the future…
I agree. I chose the 1/7 6920 after going to the Colt Defense website a lot (and ARFcom and Sigforum and here) and handling the 6721 at my local store. I was all set to buy the 6721 for 1300 bucks plus tax and 3% for the card when I looked at it again and it said all the usual stuff on the barrel to include “1/9”. Back to the Colt website and, sure enough, it was 1/9. I found a 6920 online at Clyde Armory for $1229 plus shipping and the whack for the card and transfer, but no tax and bought it after my local was unable to find one through his preferred distributors and have zero regrets.
Considering that most handguards eventually give way to rails, none of us will be adding “launchers” of any sort during our lifetimes, and the whole “looks” argument has already grown nigh unto ridicuous, this particular list leaves us with the 1/7" versus 1/9" debate. While that remains a perfectly legitimate point, it’s been covered elsewhere ad nauseam, and I think we need to be intellectually honest with each other before we begin to express very strong preferences one way or the other.
I’m not suggesting that anyone misspoke here, nor do I get too spun-up about this issue either way; that said, I seriously doubt that the rank-and-file M4CN member is losing sleep over whether or not his carbine can stablize a heavier bullet. That’s a hard-use and availability debate that is going to be asked and answered out on the range – and/or by one’s sponsoring agency – a lot more often than it is going to come into play while reading gun forums.
Bottom line? If you don’t know for a fact that you need 1/7" to meet your operational requirements, then you probably don’t. There isn’t a thing in the world wrong with preferring 1/7" to 1/9", but unless you happen to have a couple of cases of SS109 sitting across the room, there probably isn’t much point in addressing it as a real concern for the average white box weekend shooter (which includes me these days more often than not, so there is certainly no derision intended here).
)
