Smith or Colt

[YugoRPK]

I'm looking for a good AR-15 under $900 or so. CDNN has some pretty good deals on new LE marked pencil barrel Colt 6520's with A2 upper at $899 and Smith and Wesson M&P M4 flattop with carry handle at $799. If it was your dime which would you get and why?

[silencertalk]

Colt. Do I need to say why?

[bg556]

I have shot various AR-15's from various makers including Colt. Unless you are married to the name I don't see why spend more on a Colt over another, just my opinion. My buddy is a State Trooper and uses a Smith. He love his rifle, never fails and shoot straight. My neighbor has a colt and loves it, never fails, shoot straight. The only big difference between the two (I've shot both) is the markings and the price. Any arguement over which is better is going to boil down to individuals justifying their purchase. Personally have typically purchased Bushmasters, and now own a Stag Arms. All shoot about the same....
In your case I would go with the Smith as it has an A4 upper, better mounting options.

[gunguy]

I think the Smith is made by Stag? which is good. I personally like Rock River Arms because they use wilson combat barrels. Do a little research on the Larsen brothers that started Rock River and you'll see why they are well built rifles.

[copenhagen]

Rob is right.

[YugoRPK]

The consensus seems to be that given a somewhat similar price structure the Colt wins every time. Ive owned Colts and 7 or 8 other brands of AR and the only ones that didnt work were Olympics and some hokey home builds using questionable generic parts. I know I wont have to wonder about the Colt. Order placed.

[rob_s]

It's been awhile since I've seen this much misinformation in one place.

Stag no longer makes the guns for Smith & Wesson.
"Wilson" barrels as used by Rock River Arms are not from "Wilson Combat".
The brothers that started Rock River Arms left Les Baer to start their own 1911 company. They lost their way and chose to make budget ARs instead.
There are many things that set Colt, BCM, Noveske, Daniel Defense, and LMT apart from other, lesser, brands besides simply price and logo. However, if you are ignorant enough to think that these are the only differences your ignorance will likely also keep you secure in that opinion.

[bg556]

Going to explain further? So far you just called people ignorant yet made no effort to explain your response. I believe the post reads "Smith or Colt", not "Smith or Colt or the hundreds of other makers of AR-Style rifles". Also keep in mind that if you take an AR-15 and replace all it's parts with custom parts you have a nice rifle but it really can't technically be called an ar-15 anymore. (Ex: installing a piston driven system... AR-15's/M4's/M-16's are made with gas tubes.) I will not argue that a custom built rifle isn't nice, but in regards to the run of the mill configuration there is not much difference between Mil-Spec AR-15's with Mil-Spec parts. Keep in mind that the original post said:
"I'm looking for a good AR-15 under $900 or so."
If you can show me a Noveske, Daniel Defense, or LMT for $900 or under, please let me know.

[JohnnyC]

Going to explain further? So far you just called people ignorant yet made no effort to explain your response. I believe the post reads "Smith or Colt", not "Smith or Colt or the hundreds of other makers of AR-Style rifles". Also keep in mind that if you take an AR-15 and replace all it's parts with custom parts you have a nice rifle but it really can't technically be called an ar-15 anymore. (Ex: installing a piston driven system... AR-15's/M4's/M-16's are made with gas tubes.) I will not argue that a custom built rifle isn't nice, but in regards to the run of the mill configuration there is not much difference between Mil-Spec AR-15's with Mil-Spec parts. Keep in mind that the original post said:
"I'm looking for a good AR-15 under $900 or so."
If you can show me a Noveske, Daniel Defense, or LMT for $900 or under, please let me know.

A Smith is about as close to mil-spec as a Bushmaster or Stag. And by that it means they are nowhere close. A Colt is as close as you can possibly get to the TDP without an auto sear and a 14.5" barrel. There is absolutely a difference between a Colt 6920 and a Smith, or any other lesser brand. They DON'T use mil-spec parts, no matter what you choose to believe, and they ARE NOT close to mil-spec. Now how much you believe that constitutes perfection in an M4 pattern gun is up to you, but it's completely false to try and say they are the same thing. There is empirical evidence that proves this, ignoring it is ignorant, and typically based on some emotional connection to buying an inferior gun when compared to the specifications laid out in the Technical Data Package.

As far as the 6520 goes, aside from barrel profile and upper receiver it's essentially a 6920. I would not desire one as I think shooting irons only when there is a proliferation of excellent sighting mechanisms is stupid. I have no qualms about a pencil barrel. I would buy one and swap out the upper for a railed upper receiver and sell the A2 to recoup some of my costs.

[bg556]

One, I don't remember implying 'perfection' on any AR-15 type rifle. And I'm not sure where an 'emotional connection' was implied either. In fact the only emotional connection I have seen is in arguing on behalf of Colt, and why it is so much better. Look if you want to justify why one type of rifle, again not talking about a $2400 noveski, is going to do all those things that the others won't be my guest. All I'm going to say is that I have shot and handled both, a Colt and a Smith, and to be honest at 100 yards I can't tell the difference. Now maybe that makes me 'ignorant' but if you can't tell the difference what is the difference?

[rob_s]

but in regards to the run of the mill configuration there is not much difference between Mil-Spec AR-15's with Mil-Spec parts.

Please list for me all of the "milspec" commercially available ARs. I'll make it easy for you and concede semi-auto vs. burst/full auto and 16" barrel vs. 14.5".

While you're at it, I'd like to hear what you think "milspec" means.

[rob_s]

All I'm going to say is that I have shot and handled both, a Colt and a Smith, and to be honest at 100 yards I can't tell the difference. Now maybe that makes me 'ignorant' but if you can't tell the difference what is the difference?

Isn't that exactly what I said?

if you are ignorant enough to think that these are the only differences your ignorance will likely also keep you secure in that opinion.

[bg556]

You are implying I am ignorant because both rifles shoot and handle the same? I don't buy rifles for antiquity, re-sell value or as collector pieces. In the AR-15 realm, I feel there are better built rifles and lesser built rifles. The better ones would include Noveski, LMT, etc. They are better in that they have custom parts and more individual attention is given in their construction. Then there are production rifles like Colt, Bushmaster, Smith, etc. These, while still very reliable, are made with standard parts and are mass produced. I don't feel that a Colt is in the same tier as a Noveski, sorry. If you feel that way then that is your opinion. In regards to the parts that make up a colt vs other makes, I have used a Colt parts gun/kit to replace various parts in one of my Bushmasters and it worked just fine.
My friend owns a Colt and a Stag and likes them both, however he doesn't like the fact that the Colt has a large amount of 'play' or looseness between the upper and lower receiver (it came that way). Another buddy of mine is currently serving in the Marines and is issued a Colt M4 (he confirmed this), however he went out and purchased a Smith AR-15 that he owns and is very happy with it. Jokingly I asked him why he didn't go with the Colt, to which he replied "Same s--t". Admittedly I may have thrown around the term Mil-Spec a bit loosely. But I still don't understand the big difference between (and again the topic was Colt vs Smith) the two rifles. If you want to split hairs then that's your prerogative but this is just going to turn into a pissing match, and that is not why I joined this forum.

[rob_s]

It is not a pissing match, it is you that doesn't know what you don't know, and others that know more than you. You choose to listen to folks that affirm your foregone conclusions (like your Marine friend) and ignore facts, specifications, and reality. That is certainly your right, but then you should refrain from doling out advice to others based in your own ignorance.

I understand that it's hard to come to terms with this. I'm sure that in most of your circles you're "the gun guy" and deferred to as the resident expert. The problem is that you're now faced with people that know more about the subject at hand from every angle, from research, to understanding of the military specification, to experience with a broad range of samples from a broad range of manufacturers, and on and on.

I think you are obsessed with being obsessed, and content to wallow in your own ignorance, which is why I'd prefer to simply point out that you are wrong so that others are not misled by your ignorance rather than tilt at the windmill of trying to educate you. The information you seek, if you really do seek it, really are interested in learning to fish instead of being handed a fish, is easily accessible right on this very forum.

[bg556]

One, not the 'gun guy' in any circle of friends by any means. Also my ego will not be deflated or bruised by the fact you talk as if you are the resident expert in the matter in which you feel you can now talk down. I understand that no one knows everything, and I (and you) am not exception. Also I can take being wrong and ‘coming to terms’ isn’t an issue. With this I do not doubt your cornucopia of knowledge. However you have not explained anything in regards to the topic, just state in various ways that you are right and I am wrong all while making passive aggressive and snide remarks.
As you are playing the role of a politician, you have made strong efforts to prove me wrong but have not proven you're right. Please enlighten me, again, why is a Colt that much better than a Smith? All I am stating is that in the experience I have had with them there were no apparent differences in how they functioned. Both shot well, operated the same, and experienced the same shortcomings. If they work the same, parts are interchangeable, hold similar groupings then one must be better? Again, what are the differences (aside from brand, antiquity, collector value, and price)? Simply asking for a definitive answer. If you don't have one then we will have to agree to disagree, respectfully.

[YugoRPK]

This is why I asked "Why" in the OP. I don't know the difference. What does "mil-spec" mean exactly? I just bought the Colt because the price was similar,its lightweight, I think the M4 barrel looks tacky, and I prefer Iron sights. It will make a good back packing gun.
Ive never been much of a AR-15 fan just because the M16's I hauled around in the army were poorly maintained hunks of s--t that were prone to jamming and often only shot in the general direction I was pointing them. That and until I moved to Oregon the .223/5.56 was not a legal round for me to hunt with and I like running around in the woods as much as anyone.

[bg556]

I guess I must start this with a disclaimer: "I am no expert, this is soley my opinion or information I have gathered from other sources"

For what it's worth.... In my understanding something Mil-Spec was referred to as being something that met military specifications, a product in use by the military, etc; however if I am wrong please let me know.

[rob_s]

For what it's worth.... In my understanding something Mil-Spec was referred to as being something that met military specifications, a product in use by the military, etc; however if I am wrong please let me know.

and I'm the politician?

thank you Mr. "depends on what the definition of 'is', is" Clinton!

Specifications, any specifications, include a variety of types of information. There are:

• Materials
• Material Testing
• Dimensions
• Assembly Methods
• Finishes

Unfortunately, you've been sold a bill of goods by the industry, and bought that bill of goods hook, line, and sinker. What most manufacturers mean when they say "our gun is milspec" is "our dimensions meet the milspec", and even then it is not an entirely accurate statement as many use receiver extensions that are of an incorrect diameter, chambers that are incorrect, rifling twists that are incorrect, bolt carriers that are the wrong configuration, buffers that are the wrong weight, gas ports that are the wrong size, front sight bases that are the wrong height, springs that have the incorrect number of coils, etc. Forget about them using the right materials, testing those materials properly, assembling the parts correctly, and finishing them with the right materials and in the right places.

[gunguy]

It's been awhile since I've seen this much misinformation in one place.

Stag no longer makes the guns for Smith & Wesson.
"Wilson" barrels as used by Rock River Arms are not from "Wilson Combat".
The brothers that started Rock River Arms left Les Baer to start their own 1911 company. They lost their way and chose to make budget ARs instead.
There are many things that set Colt, BCM, Noveske, Daniel Defense, and LMT apart from other, lesser, brands besides simply price and logo. However, if you are ignorant enough to think that these are the only differences your ignorance will likely also keep you secure in that opinion.

Rock River may make budget AR15's, but they learned how to make them from Les Baer=not buget AR15's,but some of the most accurate out there. I just assumed that the barrels were from Wilson combat, my bad. Have you ever shot a Rock River? There fit and finish is top notch not to mention their two stage triggers are amazing. If you want to spend a bunch of money on an AR get a Noveske, myself i'll use that extra money to buy NFA items and buy the off brand.

[bg556]

So ther term 'Mil-Spec' has nothing to do with military specification? I did not say that all people who claim 'Mil-Spec' were telling the truth, just stated what I thought Mil-Spec meant. So if you are arguing that Mil-Spec does not infer military specifications, which is what I posted, then what does it mean?

Oh and what was the big difference between Colt and Smith?

[bg556]

It's been awhile since I've seen this much misinformation in one place.

Stag no longer makes the guns for Smith & Wesson.
"Wilson" barrels as used by Rock River Arms are not from "Wilson Combat".
The brothers that started Rock River Arms left Les Baer to start their own 1911 company. They lost their way and chose to make budget ARs instead.
There are many things that set Colt, BCM, Noveske, Daniel Defense, and LMT apart from other, lesser, brands besides simply price and logo. However, if you are ignorant enough to think that these are the only differences your ignorance will likely also keep you secure in that opinion.

Rock River may make budget AR15's, but they learned how to make them from Les Baer=not buget AR15's,but some of the most accurate out there. I just assumed that the barrels were from Wilson combat, my bad. Have you ever shot a Rock River? There fit and finish is top notch not to mention their two stage triggers are amazing. If you want to spend a bunch of money on an AR get a Noveske, myself i'll use that extra money to buy NFA items and buy the off brand.

Sounds like some people prefer to go after the most expensive product out there and overlook all less expensive models. Then they are left to jealously defend their purchase. And I don't blame them, if I spent over twice as much for a rifle I would want everyone to know why it is better, even if the differences are arguable...

[rob_s]

Their two-stage triggers fail at an alarming rate.
Baer was not making ARs when the RRA boys left there, I don't believe.
Baer ARs are expensive, not good, there is a difference.
"Fit and finish" is irrelevant in the way that most people use the terms.

If you're happy with your RRA for your purposes that's fine, and for bench-shooting and plinking at low annual round-counts it's also probably fine.

Personally, NFA is pretty boring and not much good for anything but making noise, or trying not to. Myself I'll use the money not spent on NFA for better quality firearms that I actually have an application for.

[rob_s]

So ther term 'Mil-Spec' has nothing to do with military specification? I did not say that all people who claim 'Mil-Spec' were telling the truth, just stated what I thought Mil-Spec meant. So if you are arguing that Mil-Spec does not infer military specifications, which is what I posted, then what does it mean?

Oh and what was the big difference between Colt and Smith?

So your Smith is "milspec"?

I'm not saying that "milspec" is the be-all-end-all, but if it's your benchmark, you missed. I'm also not saying that Smith is necessarily a bad AR (I'd choose other brands personally) but you continue to appear to prefer to stick your head in the sand rather than address reality.

and again, the answers to your questions are here in this forum. The fact that you couldn't be bothered to read the stickied threads and instead just jumped in and started doling out advice based in ignorance, and sample sizes of one each, is pretty telling. You've been led to the water, but how much harder can I tug on your reigns to get you to drink?

[rob_s]

if I spent over twice as much for a rifle I would want everyone to know why it is better

If I bought a sub-standard AR, that I thought was "milspec" but wasn't, despite the fact that information about what was better was readily available to me, I would want everyone to ignore the fact and just wallow in ignorance like me.

even if the differences are arguable...

"arguable"? Aren't differences either there, or not there? I have brown hair, my brother has red. is that somehow "arguable"? I don't understand this statement.

if you mean that they benefits of the features that the Colt has that the Smith does not are "arguable", then I'd agree with you. This is ultimately where you'll wind up after you finally do realize that these features do, in fact, exist. You'll protest that there are no differences for days, and when you finally stumble upon the truth you'll say "oh, that! I knew that all along I just don't care about that!"

except that you've been beating on the milspec drum for too long now, and sooner or later you're going to have to confront the fact that you DIDN'T buy a milspec gun, and even with barrel length and fire control aside you didn't even buy the gun that most closely meets the spec. Hell, you didn't even buy the gun that most closely meets the spec AT THE PRICE POINT. So let's not try the other inevitable argument of "yeah, well, I paid less".

[bg556]

So ther term 'Mil-Spec' has nothing to do with military specification? I did not say that all people who claim 'Mil-Spec' were telling the truth, just stated what I thought Mil-Spec meant. So if you are arguing that Mil-Spec does not infer military specifications, which is what I posted, then what does it mean?

Oh and what was the big difference between Colt and Smith?

So your Smith is "milspec"?

I'm not saying that "milspec" is the be-all-end-all, but if it's your benchmark, you missed. I'm also not saying that Smith is necessarily a bad AR (I'd choose other brands personally) but you continue to appear to prefer to stick your head in the sand rather than address reality.

and again, the answers to your questions are here in this forum. The fact that you couldn't be bothered to read the stickied threads and instead just jumped in and started doling out advice based in ignorance, and sample sizes of one each, is pretty telling. You've been led to the water, but how much harder can I tug on your reigns to get you to drink?

What reality are you referring to? Not saying I'm sticking with the Smith. All I asked, as you are the one that had the biggest problem with what I said, in your opinion what makes the Colt so much superior. Not asking you refer to other posters and previous posts. You ask that question to 10 different people and you can get 10 different answers. In your opinion?

And as far as advice, the OP asked in our opinion if it were our 'coin' what woud we do, and that was my answer based on my opinion.