Again, pretty sure they’re still supplying things.
I’ve not had any post holding company half moon carriers. All the full TDP stuff I have all has standard pins and M16 carriers. Uppers are all C marked.
Sounds like you have guns built between ‘08-‘18.
The only thing, IMO, on a Colt that sets them apart are their barrel and BCGs.
They are supplying front sights? Where the F is important?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I mean, yea, that’s a very fair assessment, but you say that like it’s nothing to write home about. That’s like saying the only thing that separates Toyota from Ford is the engines and transmissions.
You arguably cannot find harder wearing, more accurate chrome lined barrels anywhere, and that’s a minor miracle because you get to have your cake and eat it too, and for a really good price. And the only better bolts are KAC, and, again, Colt’s bolts are-or were-miraculous for the price.
But what made them great was full adherence to the TDP, and we don’t know what parts, if any, are currently being produced to those standards.
I believe so, yes. They’re supplying M4s to foreign governments through the US Army. They also supply full spec M4s to police around the world. Plus I would imagine they’re still supplying replacement parts for past contracts. I don’t know that for a fact, but those contracts usually stipulate supplying replacements for a period of time after it’s concluded.
Police departments require “F” marked front sights? These foreign governments require them?
Are front sights frequently required to be replaced?
I’m not seeing how this is something important. I’m not sure how changes in markings, which we’ve seen for decades, is important. I think some are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. There is no evidence they aren’t following TDP as much as they always have.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dude I’m trying to explain this to you, but I feel like you just want to argue.
Nobody is saying the marking is important in and of itself, and you’re also zeroing in on that one thing when it’s just one of many marks you would expect to find on something that was pulled from the same bin as parts going on contract rifles.
But to answer your question, yes, the rifles being delivered to allies through the US Army under DoD contract, I feel pretty safe in assuming that they’re going to be required to meet all the same requirements as anything being delivered to the military.
As for the LE contracts, yes, some if not all of those contracts are going to stipulate that they meet the full TDP. That’s going to be the main reason why a department would choose them over someone else, because Colt is the only one who can supply them with those full spec rifles. Could they skip some marks that the DoD requires? Yes, but it wouldn’t make any sense to do that, unless the customer asked for it, because then they would have to keep the parts separate and pull FSBs from a different bin. That’s why the absence of the f mark is no bueno, because it suggests two assembly lines. As in consumer rifles coming out of one bin, and contract rifles from another.
I’m asking specific questions because I want specific answers. Hopefully learning from somebody that knows. But I’m getting speculation back.
Since we are using “feel” rather than “know” I would feel each and every contract has its own specifications, and stipulating “TDP” which I don’t imagine a LE agency had access to, likely isn’t stipulating markings. In fact, I would feel that TDP specification doesn’t include specific markings, rather actual bench marks that must be met.
I still don’t understand the assumption rather than innocent until proven guilty.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk on
You’re still not understanding. The US government DOES care about those markings, so Colt marks everything going to them. Ergo, the absence of those marks suggests two different supply chains and two different assembly lines.
I so regret even starting this thread now. I merely thought it might interest some people to know that a foreign government customer was supplied with some of those same subcontracted parts as many as five years ago, so maybe they’re not so bad after all.
I didn’t think Colt was supplying these rifles to the US government. I’m just confused now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My unit got a new batch of Colt M4a1 rifles last year.
That goes against the narrative Colt lost their contact, huh? Or were they NOS or an old contact being fulfilled?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you are talking about the Mexican gov (I think you mentioned them in your first post) - I wouldn’t be so sure they are demanding or getting top quality parts.
Think about the water down there. Americans get warned NOT to drink it but it is ‘good enough’ for them and the people that live there. All sorts of nasty crap in that water and they are perfectly cool with it…
Now imagine the barrel steel they would be ‘ok’ with. :no:
As much as I like my mexican food - I would have to take a hard pass on a Mexican rifle.
You being a collector - I would have never expected to read you post garbage like that. Disappointed to say the least…
Suppose I have 2 complete BCG’s for sale. One is marked as a Colt part like one would ‘expect’ Colt to mark their stuff and the other has a marking(s) known to be used by DPMS. Which is worth more to you???
Same could be said about individual bolts. Suppose I have a Colt marked complete bolt, A BCM marked complete bolt, and one with no marks at all. Which one would be worth the least in that example?
If Colt want’s to be like PSA and not mark their stuff that is fine with me but I’ll be damned if pay more than a PSA price for something that can’t be verified as coming from a more reputable manufacturer.
In the words of the famous Sergeant Hulka “Lighten up, Francis. We’re all in this together.” We can agree to disagree.
I don’t look at this issue through the narrowed view of a collector. Detailed collectors are an exceptionally small part of the Colt market and we don’t even help Colt keep the lights on in Hartford. My comment was strictly based on the viewpoint from an average consumer in a market with many competing manufacturers.
I agree that if someone is looking for Colt marked parts, they are going to be willing to pay a premium. I have paid too much for some Colt marked parts to finish projects but what is ‘normal’ for me, is not normal in the vast majority of the firearm consumer audience.
Additionally, I look at this a lot more open-minded than most Colt consumers probably. In a dynamic consumer environment like the firearms market, change is constant and products and processes have to change to keep manufacturers competitive. I would rather have Colt omit some part markings and help them stay in business than demand absolute conformity to old specifications that keep their production costs higher than their competitors."
If they tell you their specs you won’t trust it to be true, but they mark it you will?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They buy their guys good guns. Mostly M4s with Aimpoints, but you also see a lot of HK. So I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions.
You’re still not getting it. If they have a single production line and the parts are all marked the same, nobody has any way of knowing which parts are going to end up going where. The bolt you get in your 6920 could have just as easily ended up in a SEAL’s Mk18. And the person who made the bolts had to make every one of them with the knowledge that one of them, randomly, might end up going on a mission where the lives of many people could hang in the balance. The life of the soldier using it and his team mates, at the very least.
Another thing you have to realize is that the TDP is the apex of standard AR15s. It’s all the collective knowledge and trade secrets that have been learned over the last 50 years. If you’re not getting parts made to TDP spec, you’re getting something substandard by definition. And Colt is the only manufacturer who can sell full spec parts to consumers.
It has nothing to do with “collecting.” It has to do with when you see those marks you know you have the best possible AR15, without exception.
They still have contracts with the DoD. I keep saying that. Remember a year ago when they told their distributors they couldn’t order for a while because they had to fulfill contracts?