https://www.colt.com/detail-pa...-161-301-4-pos-gi-72

Like the title says, is CZ starting to get Colt's mojo back? Colt has just re-released the 6940 Colt Monolithic again with a sticker price of $1,400. Is there a reason I should be looking at higher end S&Ws or Sigs? Sure, that A2 grip is coming off, but that's a damn sight less expensive than getting a used LE6940 or an LMT with the same one piece upper. Military Arms Channel was the first I saw that mentioned this, and I have to say I'm kind of hooked.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DanH,

I'd be very tempted if my LGS had one on the rack.
I like the older Colts personally but I definitely like the looks of that rifle.

Now, if they make the piston carbine, we'll be in business.

Are these new ones old Colt quality (good), or new Colt quality (i.e. the quality prior to them going belly up).

^^^
These are CZ USA made rifles. They bought Colt and are making Colt brand firearms now. So, Gen 3 I guess.

At that price point...why?

quote:

Originally posted by WARPIG602:
At that price point...why?

Are you implying the price is too high? I think it's quite reasonable. Expensive handguards are expensive and desirable because they're strong and light. This, being monolithic is as strong as it can be. So, considering what you'd give to buy a similarly built gun (LMT), or build one (VLTOR VIS), or pair a quality receiver with something like a DD RIS, it's very competitively priced, IMO.

I feel I should clarify that I am not saying this gun is a substitute for something like an LMT. They could very well put a crap barrel, crap BCG, crap craftsmanship, etc, into this 6940; that would suck, but is possible. If they build the gun right, it'll be badass gun for that money.

The only thing that I'm finding disappointing right now is that Tim at Military Arms says they're all over the place, but a quick web search brought up the old one which is discontinued and there's 6 or so on Gunbroker going for $1400-1600.

Well, I have to amend my previous post because Colt is marketing this as the "Colt Monolithic," and once you search for that, they are all over the place for about $1,300. It's still tempting, especially since it's only about $200 more than the 6920 which is a ripoff.

Carbine gas on a 16" M4 profile barrels sucks. Make it mid-length gas on a better barrel profile, and THEN I might be interested.

14.5 with a Surefire SOCOM pin and weld would be OK as well.

Lefty Sig, please explain what you mean in your last post. I'm not much of an AR guy so would like to learn a little more.

It's where the hole in the barrel is drilled to work the gas system. Here's a quick explainer:

https://blog.cheaperthandirt.c...2012%20inches%20long.

Carbine length is what the govt has specified for the M4 back in the early 00's, but more rifles now are coming mid-length gas systems that reduce recoil and provides less wear on parts.

Here's a quickie on barrel profiles:

https://www.usacarry.com/ar-15-barrel-profiles/

quote:

Carbine gas on a 16" M4 profile barrels sucks

yup the millions and millions of guns built that way should all be junked.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:

quote:

Carbine gas on a 16" M4 profile barrels sucks

yup the millions and millions of guns built that way should all be junked.

I didn't say they should be junked. But for a 16" barrel mid length-is optimal and should at the very least be an option. 16" carbine gas has higher bolt carrier velocities, recoils harder and has too much dwell time. I do not like 16" carbine gas barrels and will not buy them or rifles with them. Colt needs to move forward and be competitive with the rest of the industry.

And the government profile is an example of colossal incompetence and bad engineering, but then the government specified it so that should not be a big surprise.

For that kind of money I'd rather forgo the whole "heritage" thing and settle on a 'lowly' DDM4 V7. And that presumes that CZ's post-purchase bean counters isn't continuing with the same outsourcing shlock that Colt has been doing in recent years with civilian market rifles. Besides, when you're owned and controlled by a company that's out of a former Soviet satellite state, how much is any of that so-called heritage and history really worth anyway?

quote:

I do not like 16" carbine gas barrels and will not buy them or rifles with them.

OK don't and simply move on, but they simply do not suck at least in the way I think that word has meaning... millions (and millions and millions) of carbine gas AR's run great and are completely and totally satisfactory. Including any Colt 6940 in existence. I have lots of midlength guns and in a blind taste test I'm guessing perhaps 1:10000 could tell the difference. There are people here asking about these things and that simple answer "sucks" is completely wrong, doesn't describe the issue and is not relevant to the discussion. There are good reasons for mid length gas and there are tradeoffs for mid length gas. Don't buy one of these if you don't like it, as with any gun. You can't produce one of these with midlength gas given the design. But its an excellent AR and I can't imagine one being unhappy with it (you excepted of course).

quote:

For that kind of money I'd rather forgo the whole "heritage" thing and settle on a 'lowly' DDM4 V7.

I, for one, am not here for the Colt "Heritage"; I am here for the monolithic design of the 6940. The V7 is more expensive, lacks sights, and is not monolithic. I have no beef with the V7, it's just curious to me that folks in this discussion are totally ignoring what makes this gun unique. As I said in a previous comment, and others have said as well, CZ could make it crap gun, despite it's potential. I also tend to agree with carbine gas not being ideal, but I'm the guy that would shorten the barrel anyway. They perhaps did miss an opportunity with the gas system though; they could have made it mid length, and made the receiver longer, and had a much more exciting offering.

I'm wondering if they'd have to renegotiate with LMT on use of their patent by making the gas system longer. In any case, with this new release I'm also seeing complete uppers available for around $1k including one with an 11.5" barrel. I'm thinking about getting a pistol lower just so I can have the maximum amount of leway on what size upper I can get.

And just to spell out what makes this rifle unique is that the upper receiver and rail system is milled out of 1 piece of aluminum. There are no bolts or screws holding the rail onto the upper because it's all the same piece of metal so it will never come loose or need retightening.

quote:

Besides, when you're owned and controlled by a company that's out of a former Soviet satellite state, how much is any of that so-called heritage and history really worth anyway?

Considering that CZ is one of the most gun friendly companies in this business with a good history of providing their customers with what they want, the fact that they were oppressed under the Soviet Union (which they also told to fuck off and designed their own weapons during that period) means they probably understand what a gift that freedom is than the commie socialists in Connecticut do.

Here's an interesting video on the history of this rifle from Chris Bartocci who was working at Colt back when this gun was being produced.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:

quote:

I do not like 16" carbine gas barrels and will not buy them or rifles with them.

OK don't and simply move on, but they simply do not suck at least in the way I think that word has meaning... millions (and millions and millions) of carbine gas AR's run great and are completely and totally satisfactory. Including any Colt 6940 in existence. I have lots of midlength guns and in a blind taste test I'm guessing perhaps 1:10000 could tell the difference. There are people here asking about these things and that simple answer "sucks" is completely wrong, doesn't describe the issue and is not relevant to the discussion. There are good reasons for mid length gas and there are tradeoffs for mid length gas. Don't buy one of these if you don't like it, as with any gun. You can't produce one of these with midlength gas given the design. But its an excellent AR and I can't imagine one being unhappy with it (you excepted of course).

Dude I made a simple statement about not liking carbine gas on 16" barrels, and you're the one making an issue of it and getting defensive and not moving on. I think 16" carbine gas sucks. I think government M4 profile barrels are godawful stupid, ESPECIALLY in 16". You don't. Buy what you like.

And yes Colt could make a longer monolithic upper with a mid gas barrel. But they generally haven't because there hasn't been a military market for mid-length gas (this is changing with the URG uppers) and militaries are fine with 14.5" barrels that are appropriate for carbine gas. A 6940 14.5" pin and weld with a SOCOM Closed Tine mount would be OK too.