Behold the beauty!

M

mini15

Regular
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Location
Toronto, ON
It's arrived. The Colt AR15A4. After almost a decade an un-nerfed full size rifle with all the special features made to replicate the M16A4 to the closest extent, of course without rock n roll feature.

Yea I'm a bit paranoid with privacy...


AR01.jpg


Low digits have been cool since ICQ
AR02.jpg


Comes with a magpul Pmag not Colt stamped Okay Industries mag.
AR03.jpg


AR04.jpg


Here is the FSB
FMark.jpg



Other then the lack of the fun button and the mils installation of a Knights Armament Rail, the two differences that I can see between this and an M16A4 is the lack of a F Mark front sight base. I can't find the F if there is one, so I'm guessing it's A2 type. It has strange forge marks, "B2" if anyone knows what that means care to chime in.

The other difference seems to be hit or miss, I got my rifle with the standard right (proper) hand selector, some AR15A4's ship with the ambi. It does however have the holes drilled for the ambi and the "Safe/Fire" marks on the receiver.

Always wanted a full size AR for my first AR (not first black rifle btw), the design the way Eugene Stoner envisioned it, full length gas, 20" barrel for maximum velocity. The Govt profile barrel with this actually makes this bigger rifle weight less then some peoples 16/14" Carbines.

I'll be taking it out soon enough once the LAR mags come in, you'll know though since I'll probably have a boat load of questions posted here.
 
Last edited:
Concerning front sight, I curious because mine is a LE6920 Socom and it is stamped B1.

Know nothing about AR yet.
 
Very nice rifle. I gave up trying to find the colt and got the stag model 4 special edition. I love my 14.5" M4 clones but there is just something special about the full length rifles
 
mini15 said:
Here is the FSB
FMark.jpg



Other then the lack of the fun button and the mils installation of a Knights Armament Rail, the two differences that I can see between this and an M16A4 is the lack of a F Mark front sight base. I can't find the F if there is one, so I'm guessing it's A2 type. It has strange forge marks, "B2" if anyone knows what that means care to chime in.
Click to expand...

The "F" mark is on the left side and indicates the sight is for a US made flat top rifle or carbine. The "F" marked sights are 1.98" high over the barrel and the non marked ones are 1.94". CF rifles and carbines don't use "F" marked front sights. Not sure the forty thousands of an inch makes all that much difference.

The right side markings are forge markings - not sure about these ones, but they just identify the forge company source. You'd see the same marks on dozens of other makes of AR's as well - there are only so many forging companies.
 
The "F" marked front sight assembly is standard on both the M4/M4A1 Carbine, and the M16A4 Rifle, and is required because there is not enough adjustment available with the front sight post and the standard front sight assembly. Forty thousandths of an inch may not seem like much, but the difference was enough to ensure that some of the carbines initially tested, did not meet the targeting requirements.

There has been some discussion about the new Colt AR15A4 on other forums, and I believe that the outcome was that Colt made an error, and released the first batch of these rifles with the incorrect front sight assembly. Apparently, newer batches of this rifle will be produced with the correct "F" marked front sight assembly.

The Canadian flat-top upper receiver uses a "Weaver" rail, which differs slightly from the MIL-STD-1913 rail. The Canadian rail is 1.842-1.856" high, compared to the US rail, which is 1.835-1.845" high. This allows it to maintain the same sight axis as the original C7, and the use of the same front sight assembly. This allows customers to upgrade their existing stock to flat-top uppers just by switching the upper receiver. Of course, customers can order a Colt Canada rifle or carbine with different rail specifications.

The forge marking on the right side of the front site assembly could be either <B>1 or <B>2, as Colts use both.

Regards.

Mark
 
MWL said:
There has been some discussion about the new Colt AR15A4 on other forums, and I believe that the outcome was that Colt made an error, and released the first batch of these rifles with the incorrect front sight assembly. Apparently, newer batches of this rifle will be produced with the correct "F" marked front sight assembly.
Click to expand...

So your saying Colt should ship me a new F Mark FSB eventually free of charge?...
 
Good luck with getting a free front sight assembly from Colt. That front sight assembly oversight is the reason certain of us have refrained from bringing one in just yet.

Besides, the way a fixed front sight assembly is aligned and pinned, getting a replacement to fit a barrel that has already been drilled to fit another assembly can be quite challenging. If you find that the rifle is not shooting where it should, just get a taller front sight insert. That is the way a few other manufacturers have been getting around the whole pesky "F" marked thing. It sometimes ends up sticking out above the front sight ears though.

I wouldn't feel bad though. At least your rifle is built as close as possible to the actual M16A4 specs, unlike FN's version.

Regards.

Mark
 
Nice rifle indeed, I hesitated between one of these or a MK18 but couldn't resist a NIB DDMK18 with KAC sights on the EE... To keep my MK25 company. Maybe next time.
 
MWL said:
If you find that the rifle is not shooting where it should, just get a taller front sight insert. That is the way a few other manufacturers have been getting around the whole pesky "F" marked thing. It sometimes ends up sticking out above the front sight ears though.

I wouldn't feel bad though. At least your rifle is built as close as possible to the actual M16A4 specs, unlike FN's version.

Regards.

Mark
Click to expand...

It might become an issue if trying to co-witness with a fancy optic down the line but for now it should be good. F Mark or not I can't imagine Colt would put out a rifle that won't zero out of the factory. Isn't the old A2 not F mark either?

Oh yea, whats wrong with FN's version? I was actually contemplating that one.

Deckard said:
Oh, I figured out who you are! :ang3
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
The old A2 does not use the "F" marked front sight assembly because it has a fixed carry handle upper receiver, which means that it has a lower sight height over bore, and does not require the higher front sight. The same is true of the carbines with fixed carry handle uppers. Only rifles and carbines with the US dimensioned flat-top upper receivers require the "F" marked front sight assembly. As for Colt letting it out the door like that, it depends on what distance they test fired them at. You may already have a taller front sight post installed, I can't tell from your photographs.

Also, as someone else incorrectly stated, the front sight assembly has nothing to do with gas port size. A gas port of the correct diameter is drilled into the barrel, and that determines the flow rate of gas escaping the barrel. The gas port in the front sight assembly is always larger, to allow for alignment issues during assembly.

As for the FN version of the same rifle (and this applies to the carbine version as well), although FN actually make the M16A4 for the military, and not Colt (although a few early ones were apparently Colt), the one they now market for civilian sales is not built to the same spec as the military version. It does not have the famous FN cold hammer forged barrel, or even one made out of the same material, or any other "milspec" parts in it. In fact, from what I understand, the rifle is only assembled by FN, out of parts manufactured by other companies.

There is nothing sinister about this though, and I doubt that the average user could even tell the difference. I am also not saying that it is a bad thing, just that that is what they have to do in order to produce a civilian version of the rifle and carbine. Why, because they produce the military version under licence, and in terms of that, to cut a long story short, they are not allowed to use any of the knowledge gained from the use of that (the TDP), to produce a civilian version.

Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or that their version is a bad rifle, it is just that anyone who thinks they are carrying the same rifle as the Marines, is not, and that if you want "milspec", you are better off with the Colt, once they have the correct front sight assembly. The ultimate "copy" would probably be a Colt AR15A4 with a stripped FN lower and a BCM cold hammer forged barrel (as DD don't make one with the correct length and profile).

Regards.

Mark
 
MWL said:
The old A2 does not use the "F" marked front sight assembly because it has a fixed carry handle upper receiver, which means that it has a lower sight height over bore, and does not require the higher front sight. The same is true of the carbines with fixed carry handle uppers. Only rifles and carbines with the US dimensioned flat-top upper receivers require the "F" marked front sight assembly. As for Colt letting it out the door like that, it depends on what distance they test fired them at. You may already have a taller front sight post installed, I can't tell from your photographs.

Also, as someone else incorrectly stated, the front sight assembly has nothing to do with gas port size. A gas port of the correct diameter is drilled into the barrel, and that determines the flow rate of gas escaping the barrel. The gas port in the front sight assembly is always larger, to allow for alignment issues during assembly.

As for the FN version of the same rifle (and this applies to the carbine version as well), although FN actually make the M16A4 for the military, and not Colt (although a few early ones were apparently Colt), the one they now market for civilian sales is not built to the same spec as the military version. It does not have the famous FN cold hammer forged barrel, or even one made out of the same material, or any other "milspec" parts in it. In fact, from what I understand, the rifle is only assembled by FN, out of parts manufactured by other companies.

There is nothing sinister about this though, and I doubt that the average user could even tell the difference. I am also not saying that it is a bad thing, just that that is what they have to do in order to produce a civilian version of the rifle and carbine. Why, because they produce the military version under licence, and in terms of that, to cut a long story short, they are not allowed to use any of the knowledge gained from the use of that (the TDP), to produce a civilian version.

Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or that their version is a bad rifle, it is just that anyone who thinks they are carrying the same rifle as the Marines, is not, and that if you want "milspec", you are better off with the Colt, once they have the correct front sight assembly. The ultimate "copy" would probably be a Colt AR15A4 with a stripped FN lower and a BCM cold hammer forged barrel (as DD don't make one with the correct length and profile).

Regards.

Mark
Click to expand...

That is complete BS, the common mil spec facts from the contract TDP provided by the US Mil are very well known and far from a trade secret. BCM offers complete mil spec guns and DD and Colt offer nearly complete mil spec guns to the public. The hard data about what is and is not mil spec is common knowledge, the processes used during manufacture and assembly are not. FN is riding on their name and the ignorance of the public to sell rifles comprised of non mil spec and/or low end parts and increase their margins. Regardless, the asking price of an FN AR is way off base when compared to a BCM/DD/LMT/Colt or Noveske rifle.

TDC
 
Really? Having knowledge of the TDP is one thing. Saying that you have built a rifle using it will result in legal action by Colt. BCM, DD, etc. have never been supplied with official copies of the TDP.

FN on the other hand, has, and because of that, FN can not build a civilian gun to the spec laid out in the TDP. But then, neither can BCM, DD, or any other company, say they build their rifles using the TDP. The best they can do is buy similar quality parts and use similar process and coatings. They also do not have government inspectors at their factories, and they can supply no independent verification that their guns are in fact "milspec", although people like Paul (BCM) are honourable enough to be taken at their word.

If you think that is BS, try calling BCM, DD, or any other company you choose, and ask them if they use the TDP. You can post the answers here. People like you are the reason I don't bother posting much here anymore. If BCM make completely "milspec" guns, that must mean they all come with either select fire or 3 position fire control parts?

Regards.

Mark
 
Milspec guns are made of Milspec parts that is why they are known quantities.
Proper steel, method of machining, dimensions, finish, temper and rates of testing and inspection are all stated and required.
 
MWL said:
Really? Having knowledge of the TDP is one thing. Saying that you have built a rifle using it will result in legal action by Colt. BCM, DD, etc. have never been supplied with official copies of the TDP.

FN on the other hand, has, and because of that, FN can not build a civilian gun to the spec laid out in the TDP. But then, neither can BCM, DD, or any other company, say they build their rifles using the TDP. The best they can do is buy similar quality parts and use similar process and coatings. They also do not have government inspectors at their factories, and they can supply no independent verification that their guns are in fact "milspec", although people like Paul (BCM) are honourable enough to be taken at their word.

If you think that is BS, try calling BCM, DD, or any other company you choose, and ask them if they use the TDP. You can post the answers here. People like you are the reason I don't bother posting much here anymore. If BCM make completely "milspec" guns, that must mean they all come with either select fire or 3 position fire control parts?

Regards.

Mark
Click to expand...

Naturally no company will admit to either having access to the TDP nor using said information to produce their firearms as only FN and Colt should have the TDP. However, take a look at the specs offered by the quality brands, they run the proper materials and one can presume they manufacture them with the proper processes. BCM is the only company to divulge the fact that their barrels are indeed HPT and MPT by an independent source in order to claim that their products are indeed mil spec. Their rifles are completely mil spec, I never said their rifles are 100% true to the gov spec. The exception being the absence of an auto sear, hammer, selector, and disconnector. FN's commercial offerings are no better than those from DPMS, Olympic Arms, High Standard, or Bushmaster to name a few. Non mil spec parts sold in a visually similar offering as those used by the military.

TDC
 
MWL said:
The ultimate "copy" would probably be a Colt AR15A4 with a stripped FN lower and a BCM cold hammer forged barrel (as DD don't make one with the correct length and profile).

Regards.

Mark
Click to expand...

From what I can tell it's not an HBAR barrel like their MT6700 model, it is an A2 Govt profile barrel, pencil length under the handguards and heavy profile after that to the flash hider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom