Apologies for the crappy cell phone pics. What I have here are two recent production LE6920s purchased last month. One is S/N LE438xxx and the other is LE511xxx. As I expected from reading the reviews/forums, both guns came with plenty of scratches and rough handling marks…does not bother me. Also as expected, both guns have been running smooth and accurate with various types of ammo.
What I wasn’t expecting…was the very rough machining on S/N 438xxx. As you (sort of) see in the pictures, the machining inside the trigger guard is much rougher compared to the other 6920’s lower. It looks as if its just leftover roughness from the original forging that was never smoothed out. It appears to be simply cosmetic, but the fact that the other recent production gun’s perfectly machined lower has me thinking this particular gun slipped by QC.
Additionally, the interior of the cutouts on the bolt carrier has very rough machining on LE438xxx…whereas LE511xxx is perfectly smooth. Again this seems purely cosmetic because the machining is smooth where there is actual metal-on-metal contact with the bolt and receiver.
So my question is…were 6920s always hit or miss in this regard? Or is it just newer production guns? I bought these guns to be shooters, so I honestly don’t care about cosmetic issues…I’m not planning on sending the gun back to Colt since the gun runs perfectly. However, I’m curious as to whether the rough machining can be considered “in spec”, or if its just bad QC.
I don’t know if one could call it bad or missed QC. This type of rough finish or machining may be acceptable by Colt’s QC requirements. Would this pass QC at other companies? Maybe, maybe not. Is this acceptable to consumers? Maybe, maybe not. Everyone’s standards will be different. Threads and comments on Colt cosmetics being a disappointment are somewhat common. So I don’t think it’s a lack of QC, or a failure of QC in catching the blemishes. Rather, it leads one to believe their QC requirements are fairly limited in terms of cosmetic appearance. If it functions properly, how it looks is not that big of a deal. Consumers may be unimpressed with the results of that approach, but it doesn’t mean something is wrong with their QC.
I tend to agree. Again, I was aware that Colt is known for shipping guns with minor cosmetic flaws. I found it interesting that one gun was made with noticeably more attention to detail…while the other seems to have been made without much care for cosmetics. If Colt’s “spec” allows for rough machining in non-critical areas…then why was the one gun machined so much more smoothly in those same areas? That led me to wonder if the variance lies more in QC than factory standards/specs.
More than likely it simply comes down to pride in workmanship and one Colt worker having more of it than another. Some try to meet minimum requirements while others go above and beyond, like I’m sure almost all of us have seen in our professional lives. Both guns pass QC because the slightly rough markings don’t inhibit the function of the weapon and there’s a good chance that the final owner of the gun will not notice it or not care enough to try and send it back.
If it really bothers you I believe Colt has a 1 year warranty on cosmetics and they may cover it. However I’ve seen much worse from them before and overall that’s not really that bad.
Yeah, I grew up with Colt AR-15s. They have fallen far. I should hear back on the lower this week. They had me hold onto the upper. I wounder if they will replace just the lower, or send a whole new rifle.
I agree. But if you think that’s bad, you should have seen the 6933 some shop recieved and posted about on TOS. Makes Mars Attacks’ lower look like a museum quality piece.
I can only imagine how much different the comments would be if the firearm said Anderson or PSA on the side. Poor quality is just that and the mfg. should be held accountable regardless of the roll mark. I have BCM and Noveske blems with no real visible defect.
Bought a 6720 a few years back with a really ugly bolt carrier. I remarked upon it here at which time I was roundly criticized for being picky. The rifle has run fine, but for what it cost and the plethora of alternatives, it was odd.
Colt guns are almost always VERY good ARs, but they do not, and have never produced identical, clone guns. They’re always changing all kinds of things, like the hammer types, BCG finish, etc.
I wouldn’t say QC is slipping for Colt. I’ve seen flashing like that in many trigger guards. Most of our M4’s were made from the early 2000’s to 2009. The safety stop is pretty sad though. David
They are both. A raw forging comes to Colt from the Forge and then Colt machines the lower to their TDP.
The OPs lowers are acceptable. The second member who posted the tools marks by the selector may not be acceptable by most but I wouldn’t think twice about using it.
OP that is common on Colts. Every single one of the over a dozen Colts I’ve owned (1960s and 70s factory MGs, 90s era blue labels, late 90s 6920s, mid-2000s 6933s, to 2013 production 6920s, 6933s, and 6943s) looked identical.
