Colt 6920 vs M&P 15 Sport 2

>>33988423
LE6940 >>>>>

>>33988423
>Colt
>Military use

The contract for M4s in the US Army went to FN USA years ago OP. The M&P15 is a solid pre-built AR15. Make sure to get a Gen 2 with a dust cover and forward assist.

Heads up though in the long run for aftermarket parts. You'll be kicking yourself in the ass for not building an AR15 with the parts you want.

>>33988423
get the chrome lined barrel

>>33988504
>The contract for M4s in the US Army went to FN USA years ago

Interesting. I thought people were still saying that Colt does them.

>Make sure you get... a forward assist
I thought those things were useless (from InRange TV).

>>33988423
you can get two M&P II's for the same price as one Colt. Get the M&P.

>>33988423
Colt makes a good AR, one that will hold up to high round counts.
If you plan on shooting it alot and counting on it for home defense I would highly recommend the Colt.
>inb4 someone gets assblasted because their hd is an m&p sport.
The m&p sport is not a *bad* gun but for the price difference of what would be only a few range trips worth of 5.56 ammo I'd get the rifle that is more closely held to mil spec standards, rather than one that undercuts those standards to make it cheaper.

>>33988534
>You can three hi points for the price of one Glock.
>You can get two Sigmas for one M&P 9 Pro.
>You can get 5 makarovs for one p226

I bet you post from a 56k modem.

>>33988423
Colt isn't the same as the gun the Military uses.
The M&P has all the same Capabilities aside from the 1/9 Twist barrel rather than a 1/7 Twist, and Melonite vs Chrome lined.

Unless you are firing 72gr. Bullets or heavier, which you probably aren't., go with the M&P.

>>33988533
The only people who say forward assists are worthless are retards that don't know why the forward assist exists.
It's not for forcing the bolt into battery when it won't feed, it's for assisting the bolt back into battery after draining water out of the barrel/gas tube.

>>33988423
If you're nogunz just get yourself an M&P, I have one and it's an excellent fun rifle

It will provide you with a base for further customization if you ever want to go for that
Want 1/9 rifling? Just buy a different barrel assembly or a nice upper and slap it on that cheap lower
Want a longer/shorter/lighter/heavier trigger? Get yourself a better one

The wonderful thing about an AR15 is the degree of customization available for you, and if you just want a neat beginner gun you can build upon you could do a lot worse than an excellent 600 buck rifle

>>33988634
The bolts and barrels on the colt are individually pressure tested and magnetic particle inspected, the s&w at best has batch tested parts.
If you can't see why inspecting every bolt and barrel for cracks is a good thing I can't help you.
The s&w uses 4140 chrome moly steel that is nitrided, the colt is 4150 chrome moly vanadium that is chrome lined. The cmv steel was a requirement by the military for the contract, considering how cheap the military can be don't you wonder why the more expensive 4150 cmv was required? Really gets those neurons firing doesn't it?
1/7 twist will shoot 55 grain just fine, particularly for the range you are using a carbine at anyways but you go 1/9 you'll be shit out of luck if you want to use better ammo like the OTM's.
Maybe these things aren't worth it to you, but to tell people there's no difference between an m&p and a colt is just ignorance and hilljack speculation.
>inb4 colt shill
I don't own a colt ar15 or the m&p.
Shot and used both.
Between the two and for my money I'll buy once and cry once and get the colt, but my gun budget is more than 500 dollars because I have a job.

I own both. I got the M&P first as a gift (new in box) and bought the Colt about a year later.

If money is an issue, the M&P is fine, a little cheaper (not usually a LOT cheaper, nor cheap enough to make it truly worth the decision.) I would hands down choose the Colt anytime, though. I'm far, far more impressed with everything about the Colt, and if the specs are to be believed, it will hold up considerably longer.

>>33988704
Why should he have to get the cheaper gun just because he's no guns?
With the fanboyism surrounding colt his buy in will be more expensive but he will be much more likely to break even on selling the colt if he finds out he doesn't like it.

OP, here's something to consider:

For many years, the 6920 was the gold standard for a civ AR in terms of features and quality of construction. This is why it has the reputation that it does. Unfortunately, that reputation is undeserved today. Remember that Colt actually LOST their contract to make M4s with the military a few years back because their quality control was atrocious. If the M4s that Colt is selling to the military, who is their biggest customer and the stated target audience for all of their products, are shoddily made, what makes you think that their civilian ARs are going to be any better in this respect? If you buy a modern Colt, the extra money you are spending is going towards a name and a horse rollmark, not a better product. This even applies to things coming out of their custom shop. They made a special run of Commander-style 1911s that all had the wrong hammers installed on them or somesuch.

Modern Colt is an abomination that has no real connection to the great company that it was from the mid-1800s to the 1950s, and you are better off staying far, far away from any of their products.

>>33988784
I've never seen anything mentioned about their quality control being the reason for losing the contract. Not once.
The issue from every source I've seen was that fn simply out bid them for it. Which considering Colt is a union shop I'm not surprised, especially since fn makes the guns with nigger labor from South Carolina.
Their 1911s got alot better around 2005 and were great out of the box guns, but since the bankruptcy last year I'd be careful, they laid off a significant number of the custom shop employees.

>>33988747
>Maybe these things aren't worth it to you
They aren't. Thanks.

OP here. One question:

If later down the road I wanted to add like a red dot sight or something, is it possible to remove the front sight post in order to have a clear sight picture through optic, or am I stuck with the front site post? Furthermore, how easy is it to get off if it's possible?

>>33988784
>If the M4s that Colt is selling to the military, who is their biggest customer and the stated target audience for all of their products,
They aren't selling to the Military anymore and the Majority of the rifles that they had sold to the Army are being phased out, Retrofitted or are in REMF units.

>>33988870
It's a giant pain in the dick but it's possible. I just Co-witness mine.

>>33988894
Is it still worth it to have an optic if I keep the front sight post?

>>33988870
You may want to look into other ARs if you can't stand the thought of the sight tower.
Spikes or BCM have good to go upper receivers with free float rails and low profile gas blocks.
If you build your lower and use basic bitch parts for the stock and pistol grip you can build an AR with a spikes or bcm upper for the same price as a new colt.

>>33988909
Absolutely, you could get an angled optic and keep the iron sights as a backup

>>33988909
Yes, definitely. Unless you are getting into low power conventional scopes it isn't an issue. You just have to make sure it's high enough to co-witness but most Red dots come with the correct size riser to do that.

>>33988909
Absolutely. Tons of people, including myself, leave the front sight tower on with their optic.

Optic mounts for the AR15 usually come in either "absolute" cowitness (dot is centered at the top of the front sight post) or "lower 1/3", where the front sight is in the bottom 1/3 of the optic viewing area. I have no preference either way, I've used both.

>>33988880
My buddy who was in the marines got a brand new colt m4 issued to him in 2008, all the other guys with him did do, while I realize that was nearly 10 years ago but I know for a fact the marines use guns for alot longer than 10 years.
Big surprise, his rifle ran perfectly.

File: Capture.png (191KB, 984x572px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 984x572px

>>33988423
>6920 vs sport 2

The real answer to the question is neither. Buying carbine length gas on a 16" barrel is retarded.

Aero Precision (very well known name in AR manufacturing) makes an excellent rifle that I recommend to everyone. It's called the AC-15M, it's all high quality milspec parts, has a midlength gas system, and comes in at $740 shipped.

https://aeroprecisionusa.com/aero-ac15-mid-length-complete-rifle.html

>>33988870
I'm the one from post >>33988504 earlier. You have two options OP. The Front Sight Post is easy to remove as it's just two roll pins place. You can either buy an aftermarket low profile Gas Block or if you're handy with a Dremel you can cut it down CAREFULLY to make it low profile.

As stated with >>33988634 and >>33988784 Colt is really a skeleton of a company it once was. I know /arg/ is a circle jerk thread of tripfags but the rollmark of a Colt isn't really all that special nowadays.

>>33988747
I know that people jump the gun for MUH MILSPEC but many companies nowadays blow that specification out of the water. As I said before FN USA holds the hallmark standard now for the US Army on rifles.

>>33988970
Yes there are companies that do better than mil spec but s&w and the m&p sport is not that company nor is it that gun.
>>33988957
http://www.guns.com/2015/08/12/aero-precisions-checking-entry-level-ars-with-their-new-ac-15/
Hot damn that's a great entry level ar right there.

>>33988996
Very true. Carbine length gas systems run the system a bit overgassed. At $700 in the post >>33988957 Aero Precision is a damn good deal OP.

>>33988951
Here's the thing though, it might be a 10yr old "Colt" but the parts could have been easily swapped out for different configurations. The AR-15 system is modular as fuck. Hell some early Special Forces were rolling with XM-16 lowers on MK18 uppers.

>>33989074
Oh sorry I didn't read the complete post from >>33988951. Damn mobile posting. Rifles always get tossed around in circulation and contracts vary between the branches. The US Army and Marine Corps have two different manufacturer contracts altogether. That's why I mentioned US Army in my early post, not Marines.

>>33989074
Yeah I know what you mean by the parts and modularity, I was just making the point that as late as 08 there were new colts being issued and they were fine guns, I don't know about now but the colts I have seen run work pretty damn good, I have a le-901, their ar10 dealio and it's been flawless and for a battle rifle type of gun is quite accurate.

Colt in general though is not what they used to be and I agree with earlier posts about that, particularly with their 1911s, but I just haven't seen enough bad with their ARs to go against my personal experiences, and those of people I trust my life to.

>>33989146
There's nothing terrible about Colts. But I feel that many in the AR-15 world whose heads have been in the ground the last two decades still chalk them up as the Gold Standard for rifles.

Also on your post with military rifles you do know that Colt has two different branches for the Military and Civilian market? Ian from Forgotten Firearms has a video on the history (and downfall) of Colt. It's a two part video if I remember correctly.

>>33988423
Build an ar15. Shit's easy, cheaper, and gives higher quality.

Be a fucking man and get your hands dirty.

>>33988423
About 600 dollars as of today.a mp15 is on sale right now for 399.99

>>33988701
its called using your finger....

>>33989300
why would your hands get dirty building an ar

>>33989315
Good luck pushing on the side of the bolt carrier with your finger to force it into battery while it's wet.

>>33989268
I do know that, but I also know the military manufacturer makes the ar15's.
It's quite funny actually the whole colt defense vs colt mfg thing.
They are literally in the same building on the same factory floor but there's a 9 foot tall fence inside the factory partitioning off the colt defense part from the civilian part (which is pretty much only 1911s now)

>>33989371
*Forcing* the bolt closed will damage your gun!
Karl said so!
Normies get out!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>33989396
Even if it's a shitpost I did say *assist* not *force*.
There's a difference.

>>33988423
u might wanna read this before buying one. they put hundreds of thousands of rounds through various ar15 builds and say which ones are the best and what parts tend to fail etc.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/09/08/ar-endurance-findings-at-a-rental-range/

https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/677135_High_round_count_AR_M4_s__over_100_000_rounds__and_how_they_have_handled_on_our_range.html

the results are pretty interesting since they found that some of the cheaper barrels last longer than the more expensive ones and stuff like the ria 1911 being equally durable to the more expensive models and the arsenal and wasr being equally durable. i dont remember much about the ar15s tho other than that they liked the psa ones

>>33990603
From reading through several of that guy's posted threads I've noticed a few things.

-1 the piston ARs gave them so many problems they stopped buying new ones
-2 the only piston AR that lasted was a clone of the hk 416, the actual hk was a civilian model mr556 and the barrel was shot out after 10k rounds.
-3 the colts he bought later on did very well but the PSA rifles with fn parts were pretty close.
-4 there was no appreciable difference between cold hammer forged chrome lined barrels and button rifled chrome lined barrels, at least at these ranges, accuracy standard was only the barrels ability to not keyhole at 15 yards.
So that's what I figured was important from the ARs.

He has a post about handguns here -> http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_4/160140_High-round-count-pistols--100-000---observations.html&page=1 and it was surprising to me in how well the Beretta 92 held up to high volume fire.
The SIGs did better than the Berettas but it seemed like frames started cracking at 150,000 rounds.
The surprise was Glock, especially from 2016 and onwards, the slides are cracking more frequently now on him.
He bought some USPs not long ago so can't really say for sure yet but he says they are running perfectly for now, being the most recent guns that is to be expected.

>>33992161
he did another thread on ak's and optics as well here:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_4_64/159106_AK_abuse__home_built_version_update_on_Page_6_.html&page=1

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1790052_.html

>>33988423
Get the Colt, if its between the two.

Colt and FN have the TDP for the M4 and M-16 rifles and build their rifles as close as possible save US regulations and obviously a semi-automatic lower.

Colt is more along the lines of something I would consider a baseline for the quality you want. An AR-15 is ultimately a tool for self defense. Do not cheap out on something like that with the potential to save your life. I'll never understand why people budget rifles when you can get something assembled with QA/QC and testing specifications outlined in the TDP.

Other companies produce rifles based on the TDP or enhanced features. Piston guns, guns with tighter tolerances, etc. Thats when you start getting into high dollar stuff $$.

That's the basic answer without getting into the individual part differences.

>>33988423
You know who buys a current Colt? Retards and special snowflake faggots. Colt doesn't even do the military M4's anymore, it's FN. Having the pony on the receiver is not worth an extra five dollars, let alone an extra two to three hundred. If you don't understand what a twist rate is, you don't need to worry about it, so take that off the table. Big deal, Colt has a 1:7 barrel. The Ruger has a better barrel (1:8 if you're interested) than the M&P (1:9), and arguably better than the Colt if you want to shoot all different kinds of loads. Colt's finish is shit, too. Sure, it's a tool not a showpiece, but you're paying a premium price for a product that's not any better than comparable offerings from Smith or Ruger. Shit, Smith even makes a 1:7 M&P15 if you want to spend money for nothing.

tl;dr Colt is a meme, get a Ruger AR-556 instead.

File: 1391321455327.jpg (301KB, 1280x860px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1280x860px

>>33988423
>>33988423
im in the same boat as you senpai...glad u made this thread

File: 1387000246420.jpg (816KB, 2619x1997px) Image search: [Google]

816KB, 2619x1997px

>>33988870
you want the Colt 6920 OEM2 roughly $620.
this is a bare bones M4, no furniture or BUIS. comes with a low profile gas block factory installed

>>33992365
More front porch gunstore wisdom from Cletus

>>33992575
t. I paid for the pony like a mong.

File: IMG_20140621_161624.jpg (747KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 2048x1536px

>>33992761
Well folks, looks like Cletus is wrong again.

>>33988423

Buy the M&P and use the left over dosh to buy ammo and shoot it

>>33992928
>Actually shooting your AR

What are you a faggot?

>>33992928
>2017
>buying into the ammo meme
That's arfcom tier advice, do you people really think the money you save on a gun purchase is going to give you an appreciable amount more of ammunition over the guns life?
The ammo you could buy price wise between a Colt and m&p is shot up by some of us in a month, others in one week.

>>33988880
>Retrofitted
This. We got issued Colt M4s that were converted to M4A1s

>>33988533
Not sure how it is in the Army, but Marines M4's are made by Colt while the M16's that still happen to be around are made by FN

>>33992161
There's a shotgun thread as well:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_1/474035_High-round-count-shotguns-to-include-Mossberg--Remington--Benelli-and-Chinese-clones.html

>>33988957
$0.50 has been deposited into your account