Colt seems to be considered one of the best manufactures. One of the best but not perfect.
How does LMT compare? Seems I can get a complete LM for about $1015 with enhanced bolt. Colts are nearly impossible to find, but seem to be more than that used.
I would pass on the “enhanced” and go with a CMT MPI M16 bolt. Otherwise LMT are generally good to go. I would call them tier 1.5, either that or LMT and BCM are the new tier 2 and BM, RRA, etc. have been bumped to tier 3.
Thanks I thought M16 parts were illegal? did I miss something?
It’s perfectly legal to run an M16 bolt carrier.
I have a 16" LMT M4 and I hope to pick up a Colt LE6920 within the next few weeks (hopefully) so I’ll run a little side by side comparison complete with photos for you.
However, I’ve been completely satisfied with all three of my LMTs including my little 10.5" which has been 100% reliable from day one. I have no complains with any of my LMTs but I still want a Colt…just because 
While I am generally a Colt snob, I do have two LMT MRP’s with LMT lowers. They have been very reliable with very high round counts. I am also running standard LMT bolt groups in both as well. I would say the actions on the Defender lowers and the bolt groups are not wuite as smooth as my Colts, they are far from bad. LMT gets a thumbs up from me, and would definately be one of my top choices if a Colt was not available.
I’ve been a Colt user for a long time (35 years) but now I have both Colt AR6721 and LMT Defender 2000 16" with LMT M16 BCG.
The slight differences I have noticed are the LMT barrel is not parked under the FSB and doesn’t use taper pins for the FSB.
Colt LE6920 have double layer heat shields in the handguards, LMT have only one layer.
The LMT lower has a high shelf and small diameter FCG pins while the Colt have an unmachined web sear block and large FCG pins.
LMT’s buffer tube is grey dry lube 5 position with three drain holes in the last rear most detent holes, Colt’s are 4 position anodized.
So far I had my LMT for more than a year now and have no problems with it like my Colt, I would recommend it if you can’t find a Colt.
There should be a big shipment of 6920 to Colt dealers either next month or so.
I believe Colt is now shipping AR’s with a 6 position receiver extension.
C4
My LMT is a 6-position tube.
I have Colt and LMT lowers, and uppers.
I consider LMT a tier1 manufacturer – I used a LMT 10.5 on a Colt M4A1 lower with no issues 
BTW my LMT 10.5 was parked under the FSB and had taper pins…
I think it is hard to generalize as both LMT and (most notably) Colt have generations that charge like the blowing wind.
My most MILSPEC gun is a Colt RO934 9mm SMG (which I run 5.56) it is for all intensive purposes a M4A1 lower (with the holes for the 9mm mag kit).
But given I have a LE6921, LE6920, AR6721, AR15A2 Gov’t, and AR15A2 Gov’t Carbine – I would not make a sweeping statment since the lowers have about 6 different generations…
That’s good news, at least they are improving their models.
Since when did they made the change, did it only started for the next coming shipment?
I would like to see pics of it and maybe order one for my 6721.
I stand corrected, this year’s models are 6-position, I was talking about my 2005 model LMT which are only 5-position.
I also have seen new models with factory ambi selectors. 
I’ll be interested to see if the new 6933s have the 6 position.
Well… I have a BCM upper and a LMT lower… So I figure it’s a Tier 1 rifle…
I’ll let you know after about 5K rds…
This distinction of what is considered tier one rifles (and parts) is about to be radically changed, IMHO. Colt has been up there for a long time, but there is a new generation of manufactuers, BCM, LMT, and CMT, to name a few, that are now making truly mil-spec parts that I believe will turn out to be just as good if not better than Colt.
Granted the jury is still out, but after a few million rounds in the coming years to prove it, I believe it will become apparent that you can build a tier one rifle with non-Colt parts. I will freely admit that I am no fan of Colt’s, and this may bias my opinion, but I believe the time is coming when you can have a truly tier one rifle without the prancing pony.
The question in my mind is, do you only consider it tier one if it has been accepted as mil-spec by gov’t contract, or can you use the mil-spec as an objective standard to build your own rifle to? For example, BCM may not have a gov’t contract (yet!), but if their QA/QC is just as stringent, isn’t it truly mil-spec in every way but the defense contract stamp?
I agree (to a point). LMT and BCM put out HIGH quality products. The simple fact remains, that if you do not have the TDP to QC your receivers, barrels, lowers, etc, etc against then you really are not a tier 1 manufacturer.
The Military channel has been running this show called GI Factory (I think that is the name) and one of the places they go to is FN. They show how each part is tested for exactness against the TDP (with lasers and some other automated tools that measure every cut, hole and depth). Then the Govt. comes in and audits the logs that come off the QC machines. So unless you go through these rigors, you are not a Tier 1 manufacturer.
With that being said, I would take a BCM over a Colt any day of the week as I know the amount work that Paul puts into each and every upper.
C4
If Colt were to cost less than BCM, would you still buy it instead of Colt?
If you pretended that Colt would be cheaper than BCM, then you have to go to into deeper thought as to why one would buy a BCM. Here would be my reasons for going with a BCM over a Colt (even if Colt was cheaper):
C4
For me, yes. Cost can be a factor but for me in this case, it isn’t.
I am not trying to troll here. There are many fans of Colt. I am simply not one of them. We can simply leave it at that, and keep this thread from becoming a political diatribe.
It becomes a question of whether you believe a weapon can truly be considered tier one without gov’t contract approval. Taking nothing away from FN and their gov’t overseers, their process sounds truly impressive, but is this absolutely necessary? Coming from an areospace background, as an airframe fabricator, for GD, Martin Marietta, and Lockheed-Martin, I have seen the layers of gov’t beaucracy that are necessary to comply with mil-specs and gov’t contracts. We are all familiar with the processes that create the gold-plated parts and hundred-dollar toilet seats so I won’t be-labor the point. However, I feel it’s necessary to point out that just because a part is built to mil-specs for a gov’t contract does not mean it is inherently superior to a non mil-spec part. It may be the case, or it might just be that one part has “papers” and the other does not.
There have been interesting discussions concerning mean time between failures and adjusting maintenance intervals to more than compensate for this. This seems to be a more viable approach to the subject, rather than relying on who the current gov’t contractor is.
“is it absolutely necessary” is not an issue for me. An AR15 isn’t necessary at all for me, neither is a 1911, but then neither is a 400 horsepower car, but I own all of them. When I buy I like to have what I consider to be the best. In my opinion, Colt IS the best.
I don’t mean the necessity of ownership or use (although that certainly is an issue with the Colt upper management), I mean the QA/QC layers of gov’t beaucracy.
Each to his own.