I have not seen a discussion thread dedicated to the new Colt CM901 Multi-Caliber Rifle; it is very interesting, so I thought I would start one.
My concern is that a rifle that can chamber 7.62 NATO, when converted to 5.56, would be inconveniently bulky; this does not really seem to be the case, judging from the pics.
What are your thoughts?
Really doesn’t appeal to me. Its not that hard to have one gun per caliber. Im not going to be at the range, and fumble around with swapping uppers and lowers around.
Yep, I’d rather just have a 5.56 rifle and a separate .308. You can get a good quality, complete 5.56 lower for under $400.
However, another viable .308 AR that takes M16/M4 TDP specs and applies them to the larger cartridge is appealing. More options for the .308 buyer means more competition, and in the long run better quality products for the consumer.
Barrel is deal breaker for me. We’ve got enough precision AR7.62s. How about one that runs with the reliability of a legacy battle rifle but has the ergos of a modern AR.
If I hadn’t already invested into the KAC system, I’d choose this over anything in the market.
IMHO.
Colt Advantages: 5.56/7.62mm WEAPON SYSTEM, with full ambi lower, and if the lower right side bolt release works as a catch, then I’ll say it’s goddamn near perfect.
Colt Disadvantages: Monolithic upper, stupid flip up gas block sight.
KAC Advantages: Ambi lower, super light weight, most usable stock sight (tool-less!) system on the market, redesigned bolt, and gas system.
KAC Disadvantages: No right side bolt catch, not a 7.62 SYSTEM. Must have SR-25 lowers.
LMT Advantages: … QD Barrels, good barrels?..
LMT Disadvantages: Monolithic upper, non ambi lower, non redesigned anything… nothing new really…
Colt’s offering here basically makes HK, and LMT offerings look really unattractive in this price range.
I want a CM901. But not at the price of getting rid of my KAC systems.
If I was starting from scratch though?..
…
…
Maybe… 
3 or 4 fully operational rifles are better than one fully operational rifle with a bunch of uppers laying around .
The LMT MWS actually has ambidextrous controls…
It is pretty much the same as a KAC lower…
Why would you consider either of those to be disadvantages?
.
I read somewhere that I can’t for the life of me recall, that the 5.56 upper to fit on the 7.62 lower required an “adapter block” be installed on the 5.56 upper.
Looking at the pictures above, I wonder if the small pouches in the gun case are for the “adapter blocks”?
Has anyone seen how these adapters work?
To me…that adapter just seems like something to lose…
But maybe it’s just me…
.
Interesting concept for sure. Any ballpark idea on price yet?
The 7.62 gun does. The 5.56mm gun doesn’t. KAC 5.56mm and 7.62mm guns do.
I’ve never seen an ambi 5.56mm LMT lower.
I’ve seen somebody bust a monolithic rail in person, and they had to replace the whole upper receiver. It was a MEGA upper. They came down to fire on their side/prone stance, and they slammed the 3 O’clock rail at just the right place to bend it out of shape. It would no longer maintain zero, with a front BUIS.
MEGA did not cover it under warranty or anything.
That’s retarded. They also weigh a shit ton more, and if they don’t have built in anti-rotation sling swivels, you’re SOL.
I mean… LMT MWS is like 9.4 lbs. WTF. NO.
Gas Block Sight disadvantages: I’ve shot 3 6940s from dudes at the range, and the sight was very hard to put into the up position, and it required tools to adjust.
I don’t like that. That’s why I run KAC Micro BUIS.
KAC, is the only company who’s gas block sight I’d use. And it’s still not my first choice.
I had the opportunity to shoot a few of these, and I thought that it was a very interesting lower design. I think it could be a very useful SBR. One $200 tax stamp for a 7.62 and 5.56 SBR. From what I remember, it had some sort of hybrid piston design, and felt recoil seemed very mild even under auto firing. Unfortunatly, I don’t have any other specifics.
ETA: At the time (about 1 year ago) the rep was talking price around $1200-1500. I’m not sure what that included as far as uppers/conversion parts.
The Colt flip up front sight is inferior to the KAC.
The whole modular upper/barrel user change fad is a solution to a government bureaucracy property control and logistics problem and would never exist the real world.
I prefer a separate 7.62 and a separate 5.56 and I could care less about a quick change barrel.
Yep, that is why I specified that I was talking about the MWS…
I hope Colt does not release this rifle with a heavy barrel installed. I think it will sell well regardless of the barrel type but a lighter profile barrel would be nice.
I couldn’t care less about the QD barrels, but I like the full ambi capability, factory camo offerings, and the ability to run 4 uppers on 2 lowers.
It is an interesting idea. I like the innovation.
To me “conversion” rifles are a lot like “all in one” hand tools.
While a socket handle that has hammer, wrench and screwdriver attachments can seem handy at first glance, the reality is that it really doesn’t do most of those jobs to the full potential and it is often less frustrating to just bring along the hammer and screwdrivers.
I can’t imagine any special forces types packing two additional uppers and two more ammo load outs and related parts. Guys who work with their rifles want to be able to set them up correctly the first time and do the job. They don’t want to be playing games trying to reconfigure their rifle as they are doing the job.
So this kind of thing is really for the civilian shooter who wants a Lego rifle. And while I can understand why some might want a Lego rifle, I still think you are back to the “all in one” combo tool and related problems. I’d rather have a dedicated 5.56 and .308 rifle.
But as others have said, I can appreciate the innovation and design. It is ideas like this that eventually lead to more viable rifles.